MEETING

i

CABINET

DATE AND TIME

THURSDAY 21 FEBRUARY 2008

AT 7.00 PM

VENUE

THE TOWN HALL, THE BURROUGHS, HENDON, NW4 4BG

Please note day of meeting

TO: MEMBERS OF CABINET (Quorum 5)

Chairman: Councillor Mike Freer

Councillors:

Fiona Bulmer Anthony Finn Lynne Hillan

Melvin Cohen Andrew Harper John Marshall

Brian Coleman Helena Hart Matthew Offord

You are requested to attend the above meeting for which an agenda is attached.

Janet Rawlings Democratic Services Manager

Democratic Services contact Nick Musgrove 020 8359 2024

CORPORATE GOVERNANCE DIRECTORATE

To view agenda papers on the website: http://committeepapers.barnet.gov.uk/democracy

FACILITIES FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES

The Town Hall has access for wheelchair users including lifts and toilets. If you wish to let us know in advance that you will be attending the meeting please telephone Nick Musgrove on 020 8359 2024. People with hearing difficulties who have a text phone, may telephone our minicom number on 020 8203 8942. All our Committee Rooms also have induction loops.

Town Hall Hendon NW4 4BG

ii

ORDER OF BUSINESS

Title of Report Page Nos. Item No.

1. MINUTES OF MEETING HELD 23 JANUARY 2008 -

2. ABSENCE OF MEMBERS -

3. DECLARATION OF MEMBERS’ PERSONAL AND PREJUDICIAL INTERESTS

-

Report of the Democratic Services Manager 4. Referral from the Tackling Crime and Housing Overview &

Scrutiny Committee: Hate Crime Review 1 – 24

Reports of the Leader of the Council 5. Council Budget & Council Tax 2008/09 Separate

document 6. Translation & Interpretation Policy 25 – 28

Report of the Cabinet Member for Community Engagement & Community Safety

7. Street Trading 29 – 48

Report of the Cabinet Member for Planning & Environmental Protection

8. Section 106 Lifelong Learning Contributions to Education & Libraries

49 – 97

9. ITEMS REFERRED FROM OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEES:

-

10. No items have been referred other than the report at item 4 above.

-

11. ANY OTHER ITEMS THAT THE CHAIRMAN DECIDES ARE URGENT

-

iii

Fire/Emergency Evacuation Procedure If the fire alarm sounds continuously, or if you are instructed to do so, you must leave the building by the nearest available exit. You will be directed to the nearest exit by Committee staff or by uniformed porters. It is vital you follow their instructions. You should proceed calmly; do not run and do not use the lifts. Do not stop to collect personal belongings. Once you are outside, please do not wait immediately next to the building, but move some distance away and await further instructions. Do not re-enter the building until told to do so.

iv

AGENDA ITEM: 4 Page nos. 1 – 24

Meeting Cabinet

Date 21 February 2008

Subject Referral from the Tackling Crime and Housing Overview and Scrutiny Committee: Hate Crime Review

Report of Democratic Services Manager Summary

The Cabinet is requested to consider a referral from the Tackling Crime and Housing Overview and Scrutiny Committee regarding the Hate Crime Review

Officer Contributors Bathsheba Mall, Overview and Scrutiny Officer Status (public or exempt) Public Wards affected N/A Enclosures

Appendix 1 – Extract from the Decisions of the Tackling Crime and Housing Overview and Scrutiny Committee dated 23 January 2008 Appendix 2 – Report to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee containing the Hate Crime Review Working Group report Appendix 3- Recommendations of the Hate Crime Review Working Group

For decision by Cabinet Function of The Executive Reason for urgency / exemption from call-in (if appropriate)

N/A

Contact for further information Bathsheba Mall, Overview and Scrutiny Officer Telephone 020 83597034

1

2

1. RECOMMENDATIONS 1.1 That Council members and officers be encouraged to participate in

appropriate festivals and events with local communities when invited to attend the same;

1.2 That contact is initiated with the Chinese community, more specifically with take-away restaurant owners, in relation to reports of racist abuse and related crime suffered by some of the same;

1.3 To note the comments of both the Union of Jewish Students and Middlesex University in relation to the national issue of race hate literature being circulated within universities and to request periodical monitoring and reporting from the university to ensure that Barnet continues to be free of the same;

1.4 That the Cabinet Member for Community Engagement and Community Protection be requested to provide future updates to the committee to assist the Committee in its overview and scrutiny function.

2 RELEVANT PREVIOUS DECISIONS 2.1 The Tackling Crime and Housing Overview and Scrutiny Committee received a report from the Hate Crime Review Working Group and formally adopted recommendations and findings contained in its report (as at Appendices 1, 2

and 3 to this report) at its meeting on 21 January 2008 . Contained in the report were a number of recommendations to Cabinet.

3. CORPORATE PRIORITIES AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 3.1 The Corporate Plan 2007/08 – 2010/11 sets out under the key priority of Clean, Green and Safe, objectives that includes reducing the fear of crime, Working with partners to promote and improve community safety and fear of crime within the community and working in partnership to design out crime. 3.2 The Clean, Green, Safe Key Priority Plan 2007/8 – 2010/11 sets out the

responsibility of the Corporate Governance Directorate to lead on helping people through effective response to and raising awareness of Hate Crime, including domestic violence.

3.3 The Corporate Plan and Key Priority Plan set targets of reducing the fear of crime of 8%, 32% and 40% during daylight, when it is getting dark and after dark respectively.

4. RISK MANAGEMENT ISSUES 4.2 As set out in Appendix 2.

5. EQUALITY AND DIVERSITY ISSUES 5.1 As set out in Appendix 2.

3

6. FINANCIAL, STAFFING, ICT AND PROPERTY IMPLICATIONS 6.1 As set out in Appendix 2

7. LEGAL ISSUES 7.1 As set out in Appendix 2. 8. CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS 8.1 The Executive shall consider the report of an Overview and Scrutiny

Committee at its next available meeting (paragraph 11(c )) of the Overview and Scrutiny Rules.

8.2 The Executive will carry out all of the authority’s functions which are not the responsibility of any other part of the local authority, whether by law or the Constitution ( Article 7).

9. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 9.1 At a meeting of the Tackling Crime and Housing Overview and Scrutiny

Committee held on 21 January 2008, the Chairman welcomed officers and members of the Council to hear the outcomes of the Hate Crime Review Working Group (The Group). The Chairman commended the officers and members of the working group for their commitment and support for the review and attributed its successful conclusion to their considerable efforts.

9.2 Members were invited to consider the report of Hate Crime Review Working Group Review and to formerly adopt its findings and recommendations. The Chairman outlined the background to the review, its inception and development. The starting point for the Review was the statutory definition of hate crime as being a “criminal offence committee against a person or property that is motivated by and offender’s hatred of someone because of their Race, Gender, Sexual Orientation, Age, Disability or Religion”.

9.3 Paragraph 4.10 of the report (Appendix 2) offered a snapshot of the Review. Young people had been identified as some of the perpetrators of hate crime and the rising number of incidences on buses had both given cause for concern. The Group had also received contributions and views from members of the elderly in the Asian community. The comments of local Chinese take away outlets had also been noted, regarding a number of targeted incidents. One of the key considerations examined in Review was the under reporting of incidents and the reasons for this.

9.4 The relevant extract from the Overview and Scrutiny Decisions, the Report to the Committee, the Report of the Working Group and the complete Working Group recommendations are at Appendices 1, 2 and 3. The recommendations which are for consideration and decision by Cabinet are set out in paragraph 1 above,

4

10. LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS 10.1 None.

Appendix 1

Extract from the Decisions of Tackling Crime & Housing Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

Monday, 21 January 2008

Members

*Councillor Brian Gordon (Chairman) *Councillor Terry Burton (Vice-Chairman in the chair)

Councillors:

* Daniel Webb

* Joanna Tambourides

* Gill Sargeant

Mukesh Depala * Ross Houston * Susette Palmer

* Sachin Rajput * Charlie O-Macauley

Co-opted Tenant Representatives (non-voting):

* Derrick Chung

(* denotes member present)

6. HATE CRIME REVIEW WORKING GROUP

The Chairman welcomed officers and members of the Council who had attend the meeting in order to hear the outcomes of the Hate Crime Review Working Group (The Group). The Chairman commended the officers and members of the working group for their commitment and support for the review and attributed its successful conclusion to their considerable efforts. Special thanks were given to the lead Overview and Scrutiny Officer, Vishal Seegoolam and the invaluable support he provided throughout the review.

The Chairman explained that the members were invited to consider the report the Hate Crime Working Group Review and to formerly adopt its findings and recommendations. The Chairman outlined the background to the review, its inception and development. The Group’s starting point was the statutory definition of hate crime as being a “criminal offence committee against a person or property that is motivated by and offender’s hatred of someone because of their Race, Gender, Sexual Orientation, Age, Disability or Religion”. The Chairman of The Group, Councillor Sachin Rajput thanked the Chairman for his opening remarks and reiterated thanks to both the lead overview and scrutiny officer, council officers and members of the working group for their significant assistance and support. He referred to the definition of hate crime which covered physical, mental and verbal forms of abuse, the increasing seriousness of which had recently been reflected in the introduction of enhanced legislative provisions. Recognition of this from the Police and from

5

the Cabinet Member for Community Engagement and Safety, Councillor Brian Coleman demonstrated that this Council was committed to ensuring that such incidents were taken seriously.

Paragraph 4.10 of the report offered a snapshot of the review work. Young people had been identified as some of the perpetrators of hate crime and the rising number of incidences on buses had both given cause for concern. The Group had also received contributions and views from members of the elderly in the Asian community. The comments of local Chinese take away outlets had been noted, regarding a number of targeted incidents. One of the key considerations examined in review was the under reporting of incidents and the reasons for this. Reporting incidents to the authorities was crucial and was to be further encouraged. Whilst third party reporting sites played an important role in this, it was acknowledged that they should receive greater publicity and support. In discussing the recommendations arising from the report, Councillor Rajput explained that the referral to the First Class Education and Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee encompassed a need to look at the key drivers that would engender a greater understanding of the impact of hate crime by younger perpetrators and what further initiatives could be undertaken by schools. The importance of continuing monitoring of statistics and data reporting from the Police was helpful and The Group recommended that a further update to the committee be provided in six months. Councillor Ross Houston, a member of the Group recounted that working on the review had been a positive experience and repeated earlier thanks provided by the respective chairmen of the both the scrutiny Committee and the Group. He referred to the meeting held with young people and the detailed views that had been obtained from them. Key points included the fact that Barnet was viewed as being safe compared to the rest of London. He noted that information for young people regarding available support and sources of information such as details of councillor surgeries. The Group identified localised issues recounted by some young people on the Graeme Park Estate. Whilst these were not hate crime specific, they caused some concern and required closer examination, as inferred by some of the recommendations of the Review. Councillor Susette Palmer joined her fellow members of The Group in thanking officers and member colleagues for their input and support of a piece of work which had engendered firm, cross party support. She also thanked members of the community who had contributed to the Review. She endorsed the earlier comments of her member colleagues and in particular commented on the need to encourage third party reporting at an earlier stage and the increasing level of incidences occurring on Transport for London services, particularly buses. During the course of the member discussion which followed, a number of issues were further explored, a selection of which included the following points:

6

• Fear of reprisals that might discourage people from reporting hate

crime incidences; • The importance of gathering reliable and accurate intelligence in order

to provide evidence. • Colindale Action Plan – this should include reference to the way in

which hate crime could be addressed and ways in which drivers for reducing the likelihood of incidences involving young people occurring, as referred to in the report;

Councillor Brian Coleman, Cabinet Member for Community Engagement and Safety congratulated The Group and referred to the Review as a good example of what scrutiny should be. Whilst the time taken for the Review had been extended it had been sharp and focused. He acknowledged that the evidence gathered by The Group was comprehensive well set out and that some of the recommendations would be presented to Cabinet. Councillor Coleman expanded on the link with the Police as one of the key partner organisations which formed the Local Strategic Partnership. Regular statistical reports were provided to the Council and benchmarked against Government Office for London (GOL) set targets. Reflecting on the concerns raised regarding incidences on public transport, Councillor Coleman articulated concerns about the behaviour of some young people on buses and the TfL policy of free public transport for those under age 16. Detective Sergeant David Tucker, representing the Borough Commander Steven Kavanagh from the Metropolitan Police, commended the good working relationship between the Police and the Council and the value of ensuring community cohesion. Inviting further contributions from the floor, the following Cabinet Members also commented:

• Councillor Fiona Bulmer, Cabinet Member for Children’s Services acknowledged that whilst a small minority of young people had been identified in the Review, the overwhelming majority made a positive contribution to the whole of Barnet;

• Councillor Lynn Hillan, Cabinet member for Community Services, thanked The Group for their work on the Review and highlighted achievements within community services. The Council’s work with people with learning disabilities and on third party reporting had been recognised nationally with receipt of grant funding.

• Councillor Andrew Harper, Cabinet Member for Policy and Performance, complimented the work of The Group and the conduct of the Review as an example of how scrutiny can work in Barnet.

The Chairman invited final contributions from officers in attendance and members of the public. A member of the public informed the meeting that racist literature, identified as being produced by the British National Party had been distributed in Burnt Oak. The Chairman asked that this be sent to the Committee in order to facilitate further investigation and invited the member of the public to discuss this with the Police at the close of the meeting.

7

RESOLVED - 1. That the Committee consider and agree the draft recommendations

made by the working group as outlined below: (i) That the Community Protection Group, Safer Communities Team

and Safer Neighbourhoods Team continue to establish and maintain links with appropriate Community and Faith groups;

(ii) That the First Class Education and Children Overview and Scrutiny Committee be requested to investigate what schools are doing to educate pupils about Hate Crime and whether any further initiatives can be employed;

(iii) That consideration is given to increase publicity of Hate Crime reporting methods in the borough. In relation to younger persons specifically consideration could be given to youth workers acting as third party reporting vehicles given the relationship of relevant young people with their youth workers in the borough;

(iv) That Transport for London work with the Police to ameliorate the problems regarding issues of young people travelling on buses particularly when travelling to and from school and support the imposition of sanctions such as the removal of their concessions, where young people abuse free travel;

(v) That the police be requested to provide an update to a future meeting of the Committee in 6 months of the progress made in tackling hate crime;

2. Recommendations to Cabinet:

(i) That Council members and officers be encouraged to participate in appropriate festivals and events with local communities when invited to attend the same;

(ii) That contact is initiated with the Chinese community, more specifically with take-away restaurant owners, in relation to reports of racist abuse and related crime suffered by some of the same;

(iii) To note the comments of both the Union of Jewish Students and Middlesex University in relation to the national issue of race hate literature being circulated within universities and to request periodical monitoring and reporting from the university to ensure that Barnet continues to be free of the same;

(iv) That the Cabinet Member for Community Engagement and Community Protection be requested to provide future updates to the committee to assist the Committee in its overview and scrutiny function.

8

Appendix 2

HATE CRIME REVIEW

THE REPORT OF THE WORKING GROUP

TACKLING CRIME AND HOUSING OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY COMMITTEE

9

HATE CRIME REVIEW – THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE WORKING GROUP – TACKLING CRIME AND HOUSING OVERVIEW AND SCRUTINY

COMMITTEE Executive Summary 1.1 The Committee established a working sub group to investigate Hate Crime in the

borough. The working group obtained evidence from a variety of sources and drew conclusions from their findings. The working group also developed a set of recommendations which they believe will assist to combat Hate Crime.

The report also contains the following enclosures:

Appendix 1 – Project Plan Appendix 2 – Hate Crime Review Timetable Appendix 3 – Hate Crime Review report for working group – 13 February 2007 Appendix 4 – Summary of Hate Crime Review responses Appendix 5 – Summary of meeting with the young people community

Introduction 2.1 As part of the Committee’s work programme for 2006 / 07, the Committee agreed to

conduct a review of Hate Crime in Barnet. The aim of the review was specifically to look at related social cohesion and community issues arising from such crimes within the borough and the role of the Police and other Council partners in addressing Hate Crime and the provision of support to those groups and individuals affected by such crimes.

2.2 The Committee agreed that when conducting the review, the following areas should be

addressed:

• Ascertaining the extent and nature of Hate Crime incidents within the borough (and to include answers to questions such as levels and trends of incidence of such crime on a ward profile.; how does the Council and partners contribute to efforts to map out hate crime incidents and/or to identify ‘hotspots’ in the borough and how is any such data used?).

• Establishing which faith groups, community groups and individuals are affected by such crime and why;

• Identifying what consequences have arisen for community and social cohesion in the borough arising from Hate Crime incidents;

• Establishing what role the Council, Police, faith and community leaders are playing to address Hate Crime in the borough and to identify what further initiatives and strategies could be employed by the Council and other partners to combat such crime.

• Establishing what infrastructure is in place within the borough to support community involvement in addressing Hate Crime and to seek to identify further initiatives to support such community involvement.

10

• Reviewing what practice is in place for the reporting of Hate Crime to the Police, Council and other agencies and how victims of Hate Crime can receive assistance and support from such agencies.

2.3 The Committee at it’s meeting on 30 November 2006, agreed to establish a working

group to conduct the review. The Committee agreed that the working group would compose of Councillor Sachin Rajput, Councillor Terry Burton, Councillor Ross Houston and Councillor Mukesh Depala. Councillor Sussette Palmer was subsequently also invited to join the working group. It was also agreed that Councillor Sachin Rajput would be the lead member of the review.

2.4 The working group met on 10 January 2007 to set the foundations of the review. This

involved discussing aspects of the review such as the scope and purpose of the review whilst also discussing the format that members would follow. As a result a project plan for the review was devised. This is attached as Appendix 1 to the report.

2.5 On 29 January 2007, the working group proposed the project plan to the Committee

which was agreed. It was decided that the review should be conducted in two phases. The first phase would involve assimilating information and identifying the problems and issues relating to Hate Crime. This would include ascertaining the nature and extent of hate crime incidents in the borough, establishing which faith groups, community groups and individuals are affected, identifying what consequences have arisen as a result of hate crime and establishing the role of the police, council and other bodies are playing to address hate crime.

2.6 The second phase of the review was to include research and information gathering. 2.7 The working group utilised a series of working sub group meetings and committee

meetings to obtain evidence and discuss issues. In addition to this the working group conducted visits to other community groups. The timeline of the review is set out in Appendix 2 to the report.

Hate Crime Within the Borough 3.1 The working group commenced their fact gathering task by holding a meeting on 13

February 2007. The Deputy Director of Corporate Governance, the Community Safety Co-Ordinator and the Council’s Equalities Officer were all in attendance for this meeting.

Definition of Hate Crime 3.2 The working group were informed of the statutory definition of Hate Crime and agreed

that this definition should be adopted by the working group. The definition of Hate Crime was agreed as being a criminal offence committed against a person or property that is motivated by an offender’s hatred of someone because of their Race, Gender, Sexual Orientation, Age, Disability or Religion.

3.3 It was agreed that Hate Crime could take many forms apart from simply physical

attacks. This could also include the threat of an attack or verbal abuse and / or insults. A general definition was hence that hate crime comprised of any incident, which constituted a criminal offence, which is perceived by the victim or any other person as being motivated by prejudice or hate.

11

3.4 As part of this meeting the working group were also presented with a report from the Community Safety Co-ordinator which informed them of the extent and nature of hate crime incidents in the borough, how the Council mapped Hate Crime incidents and the role the Council were playing to address Hate Crime. This is attached as Appendix 3.

Extent and Nature of Hate Crime Incidents 3.5 The report attached as Appendix 3 presented members with figures and statistics

concerning the current level of Hate Crime incidents in the borough at that time. The working group were informed that:

• There had been 558 incidents of Hate Crime reported in the first quarter of the

year 2006 / 07. • There had been 469 incidents of Hate Crime reported in the second quarter of the

year 2006 / 07.

• That there had been an increase in the number of racist incidents reported to the Local Authority by maintained schools. This was summarised as 2002/03 – 193 racist incidents 2003/04 – 182 racist incidents 2004/05 – 378 racist incidents 2005/06 – 364 racist incidents. The officers advised the working group that the increase may have been explained by a greater focus on training, an improved reporting system and a growing understanding of the importance of reporting.

3.6 The working group were additionally informed by the Council officers that it was difficult to interpret and map data and statistics on Hate Crime. This was due mainly because the figures were very low and because of underreporting of incidents.

3.7 A member of the Committee also requested that the working group investigate any

potential issues of Hate Crime incidents involving fans travelling to and from football matches. The Community Safety Co-ordinator assisted the working group and consulted with Peter Clifton, Data Analyst from the Metropolitan Police. He advised that the Police did not have any records of offences falling under this criterion and were not aware of this being a significant problem in the borough.

Role of the Council in Combating Hate Crime 3.8 The officers also detailed the strategies that were currently being employed by the

Council. These were wide ranging and detailed how the Council were not only employing their own initiatives but also working with other partners / organisations in the attempt to combat Hate Crime. These strategies included that:

• The Council had a Safer Community Team which worked closely with their

partners such as the Police to tackle Hate Crime. Additionally the Safer Communities Team was based at Colindale Police Station. This allowed them to build up strong relationships with the Police.

• The formation of the Corporate Governance Directorate within the Council

brought together different elements of enforcement and victim support which

12

included CCTV, Trading Standards, the Priority Intervention Team, a Community Safety Officer, the Anti – Social Behaviour Co- Coordinator and Licensing. This improved operational work and helped to target resources more effectively.

• The Council had a reporting line that residents could use to report racial and

homophobic incidents. This telephone number was 020 8359 5620. This telephone line was not utilised to the extent as expected by the Council and was not being used to its full potential.

• Barnet Council had 23 third party reporting sites at various locations around the

borough.

• A number of publicity materials bearing a Community Safety message were distributed to residents / victims.

• The Council run a number of other multi agency forums. The purposes of these

groups were to support areas which Hate Crime is most likely to affect. Examples of these forums included the Domestic Violence Forum and the Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Forum.

• The Council had very good links with Barnet Voluntary Service Council, the

Refugee Forum and the Multi Faith Forum. Community Leaders could report incidents to these groups and be confident that this would be forwarded to the Police or Council for further action.

• The Council were involved in a campaign aimed at people with Learning

Difficulties to try and tackle harassment and encourage reporting is currently being organised through the partnership sub group of Barnet’s Learning Disability Partnership Board.

• The Council received a grant from Central Government to help achieve targets

set out in the Crime, Disorder and Drugs Community Safety Strategy 2005 – 2008.

• The Children’s Service was in the process of piloting an electronic system to

collect information of racist and homophobic incidents. This would be rolled out to other services if successful with the aspiration of increasing the reporting of incidents. This had been taking place for approximately over a year and a half. Additionally teachers had received greater training in combating Hate Crime. The Council also played a key role in supporting the Multi Agency Harassment Strategic Group and the Multi Agency Casework Group which have representation from Children’s Service on behalf of the schools and from a range of other partners in the attempt to combat Hate Crime.

3.9 At the request of a member of the Committee, the working group conducted some extra

research into the work being conducted by schools in combating Hate Crime. The working group were informed that the Children’s Service and schools were ensuring that a number of activities were being conducted to promote equalities and diversities. The working group were informed that these measures were embedded in the curriculum and wide ranging. These included:

13

• Curriculum development that include promoting and celebrating annual events such as Black History Month and Refugee Week.

• Education for equalities and diversity through Personal, Social and Health

Education and Citizenship lessons.

• Enshrining values of diversity and equalities in Anti – Bullying initiatives. Community Involvement 4.1 As part of the review, the working group decided to invite several representatives to

meetings to discuss their views on how they had been affected by Hate Crime, how this had affected community cohesion and what further measures they believed the police and Council could employ to combat this. The working group considered this to be important because it would give a detailed perspective held my members of the public and allow them to have the opportunity of explaining problems and suggesting ideas and initiatives to combat Hate Crime.

4.2 The working group decided to obtain views from a cross section of communities in the

borough. It was anticipated that by doing this, it would allow for a more accurate representation of the issues surrounding Hate Crime in the borough.

4.3 As a result, various organisations representing different communities were identified by

officers and presented to the working party. After careful consideration the working party decided to invite the following representatives to a formal committee meeting on 29 March 2007:

• Mr Ahmed, Hendon Mosque and Islamic Centre (Representative of Muslim

Community) • Mr Frances Wong, North London Chinese Community and Mr Soon Hoe Teh

(Representatives of Chinese Community) • Mr Mike Whines, Community Security Trust (Representative of Jewish

Community) 4.4 Further representatives were invited to address the working group at an informal

meeting held at Hendon Town Hall on 30 April 2007. These representatives included:

• Mr Shukla, Barnet Old People’s Association and Mrs Nila Patel (Representatives of Hindu Community)

• Mr Maurice Archer, Barnet African Caribbean Association (Representative of African – Caribbean Community)

• Mr Royston Gould, Barnet LGBT Network (Representative of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Community)

4.5 It was also felt appropriate by the working group to invite a representative from an

Eastern European Community to a Committee Meeting. Mr Wiktor Mosczynski, Federation of Poles in Great Britain was identified. He attended the committee meeting on 21 May to provide his views on Hate Crime

4.6 In the interests of ensuring comprehensive community involvement in the review, the

working group members identified that it would be more appropriate to visit a disability group and a young people group to identify their views on Hate Crime. It was accepted

14

by the working group that members from these communities may feel reluctant or hesitant to present their views in a formal committee setting.

4.7 Barnet People Choice was identified as an organisation that may be able to assist the

working group with the review. Barnet People Choice were an organisation who assisted people with Learning Difficulties. Upon a request for them to assist the working group, Barnet People Choice subsequently invited members of the working group to one of their self advocacy sessions. This consultation visit was accepted by Councillor Susette Palmer who attended their session held at the Trinity Centre, Nether Street, Finchley on 19 July 2007.

4.8 The Council’s Youth and Connexions service assisted the working group in visiting

young people across the borough. The working group wished to consult with a range of young people within the borough each residing in a different area of the borough. The Youth and Connexions service arranged a focus group session involving 5 young people from areas such as Mill Hill, Edgware and Grahame Park. The focus group session took place at the Canada Villa Youth Centre, Pursley Road, Mill Hill on 6 October 2007 and was attended by Cllrs Sachin Rajput, Ross Houston and Mukesh Depala. The Overview and Scrutiny Officer and Mark Vargeson from the Youth and Connexions Service were also in attendance.

Key Findings 4.9 The majority of groups interviewed by the Committee overwhelmingly identified that the

Council and the Police were doing a good job in combating Hate Crime. This was particularly raised by the representative from the Jewish Community who emphasised the close relationship which the Council and Police had developed with them in combating Hate Crime.

4.10 A number of other key issues were also recognised by the working group. These

included:

• Many groups in the borough did not believe that Hate Crime was a major problem in the borough.

• That there was a perception that the majority of Hate Crime incidents were being committed by young people and / or groups of young people.

• That there were occasionally incidents of Hate Crime taking place on public transport for e.g. on buses. Some representatives believed that further training was required by bus drivers to identify incidents of Hate Crime taking place on their buses.

• That some Chinese Take Away outlets in the borough had been targeted for abuse by young peoples. The abuse usually involved name calling, imitation of accents, anti social behaviour and refusing to pay for orders.

• That some communities were reluctant to report incidents. This was due to cultural reasons and language difficulties resulting in a lack of confidence in the Police and Council and elderly persons not wanting to be seen as a nuisance.

• That greater education was required particularly for young people to educate them about different cultures, religions, races etc.

• Third Party Reporting Sites required more publicity. Additionally young people in the borough indicated that they would feel more comfortable with reporting incidents to their young people workers.

15

4.11 During the latter stages of the review it came to the working group’s attention that some of their constituents had concerns regarding the circulation of racist literature at universities and colleges. The Tackling Crime and Housing Overview and Scrutiny Committee asked the working group to consider this as part of the review at its meeting on 22 November 2007. This request was accepted.

4.12 The chairman informed the working group that he knew of representatives from the

Union of Jewish Students who were aware of the circulation of racist literature taking place. The working group decided to use this source of evidence and were put in touch with My Yair Zivan, the Campaigns Director for the Union of Jewish Students.

4.13 Due to time constraints the working group decided to compose a set of questions they

wished to ask Mr Zivan and obtain his written responses to the issues they raised. The questions they devised included:

• What they considered to constitute hate literature. • Which locations seemed to have the biggest problems with hate literature. • Whether such literature emanated as a result of foreign matters rather than

domestic matters i.e. from Islamic sources due to the situation in the Middle East. • Whether hate literature had increased over a certain period of time. • What effect hate literature had on those concerned. • How incidents of hate literature had been dealt with when reported. • What role the Council could play to alleviate hate literature issues.

4.14 Mr Yair Zivan provided comprehensive responses to the questions put by the working

group and included:

• That the Union of Jewish Students represented all Jewish students at universities in Britain and their purpose was to protect and promote the welfare of Jewish students on campuses.

• That hate literature was literature that contains incitement of or disparaging

remarks in reference to individuals or groups. Examples of these directed against the Jewish Community included conspiracy theories of Jewish control (media, finance, politics etc), attacks on the Jewish religion, attempts to portray Jews or Judaism in incorrect ways with the aim of inciting hatred.

• That the elements which did stem from Islamic sources clearly did not represent

the majority or mainstream elements of the Muslim community. The hate literature which they dealt with often seemed to be about the Middle East (e.g. Israel) and Zionism.

• That there was often a rise in hate literature at times of political tension within the

Middle East. The Union of Jewish Students also believed that the atmosphere on campuses had become tenser with the government’s response to Islamic extremism. Their statistics did not show a steady increase but rather peaks and troughs depending on the campus, who is active and the stance the university takes on such issues.

• Race hate literature had a variety of effects. The most basic was to add to a

climate of intimidation and fear on campus. This could make university life

16

extremely uncomfortable and could affect the choice of university for some students who choose to stay away from places with a ‘problematic’ reputation.

• The Union of Jewish Students was often approached with concerns. If necessary

they informed the police and contact the Community Security Trust who log anti-Semitic incidents. Their work only surrounds Jewish students but they were aware of hate literature targeted at other groups particularly the Muslim Community and the Gay and Lesbian students.

• That the result of reporting has varied greatly and that Councils could do more to

support awareness weeks for faith groups and interfaith events. 4.15 The working group decided that it was important to consult with an academic institution

within the borough to gain a perspective on how academic institutions dealt with circulation of racist literature. This approach in no way implied that the working group believed that academic institutions in the borough had problems with the circulation of racist literature. The working group simply wished to gain an insight into the policies and procedures of an academic institution.

4.16 The working group consulted with Michael Howard, the Equalities and Diversities

Manager at Middlesex University. and made the following points:

• The University had strict disciplinary procedures which included a range of sanctions should a member of staff or student be found to circulating racist literature.

• Incidents relating to racism were treated as very serious incidents by the University. • Allegations of racism resulted in suspension for the student or staff concerned. • Incidents of racism were dealt with by procedures which were enshrined in University

regulations and Staff disciplinary procedure. • In addition to reactive measures, the University were employing a number of

preventative measures to promote equalities and diversities. The university had developed and equality and diversity strategy and were in the process of developing an overriding strategy relating to dignity. The University were also involved in training, awareness raising and integrating inclusiveness into everything the university was involved with for e.g. communications, consultations, adapting environments.

• The university were not aware of any problems relating to the circulation of racist literature at their campuses.

. Partner Involvement 5.1 As part of the review, the working group also deemed it prudent to involve other partners

in the review. One of the key partners in combating Hate Crime was the Police. The working group invited the Borough Commander, Chief Superintendent Stephen Kavanagh, to the Committee meeting on 21 May 2007. The Borough Commander provided a background to Hate Crime in the borough and explained relevant statistics and practices employed by the Police. These included that:

• Hate Crime incidents had reduced from 700 in 2005 / 06 to 428 in 2006 / 07 in the

last recorded year.

17

• There had been a reduction in the number of racist incidents by 265 in the last 12 months.

• That the average for victim satisfaction with the police in the borough generally was 75%.

• That the average for victim satisfaction with the police in the borough general relating to racist crimes was 84%.

• The Police were employing a number of strategies to combat Hate Crime which included using Safer Neighbourhood Teams (SNTs), re-adjusting resources, employing joint operations groups and meeting with members of Islamic and Jewish communities regularly.

• The SNTs were allowing the police to focus on local issues, ward panels and ward based priorities. They allowed the police to engage with communities on a much larger scale and this had been demonstrated by the fact that this borough was the first London borough to achieve an excellent status for the SNTs.

• That despite the success of the SNTs the sheer diversity of the borough did not allow for uniform coverage. Additionally the police needed to engage with young peoples more particularly those from the Muslim community.

• Police officers were becoming increasingly representative of the composition of the borough.

• That the police were concerned about underreporting of Hate Crime incidents. • There was a need to engage more with the more elder members of the

community and develop further links with the Eastern European Community. • The Police had to identify gaps where service provision was not being provided.

Views of the Council 5.2 Having considered the submissions of the various representations made by the various

representatives from the community groups and the Police, the working group believed that it was essential to obtain the views of the Cabinet Member for Community Engagement and Community Safety. This was important for the working group because the Cabinet Member had overall responsibility for building upon the Council’s leadership role in improving community safety, embracing diversity and inclusiveness, removing inequality and to work with the many different ethnic and religious groups to maintain community cohesion.

5.3 The Cabinet Member accepted an invitation to discuss issues of Hate Crime with the

working group and committee at its meeting on 18 September 2007. The key points that the Cabinet Member raised included that:

• The Council had an even more responsible role in combating crime as a result to

changes in the Criminal Justice System. The Council had, as a result, formed the Community Protection Group to deal with these responsibilities.

• That in light of data and information available, Hate Crime did not appear to be a particularly major problem in the borough when compared to other areas regionally and nationally, and that the borough had a good record of community cohesion.

• One of the key issues surrounding Hate Crime related to the underreporting of incidents. Reporting could be addressed either to the police or a range of third party reporting sites in the borough.

• It was particularly difficult to establish any formal links with the transient Eastern European Community.

18

• The Council always sought to improve but resources also played a considerable role.

• Travelling on buses had become a concern. Better policing on buses was required.

• The police had made great strides in addressing homophobic crimes 5.4 The responses provided by all invitees to the working group and committee are

contained in Appendix 4 Conclusions 6.1 Having consulted with a wide range of representatives, the working group then deemed

that they needed to review all the responses they had obtained and establish any further initiatives and strategies that may be employed.

6.2 The working group decided to hold an informal working group meeting on 16 October

2007 to consider their conclusions. The working group went through the objectives of the review and used the evidence they had obtained to draw their conclusions. They considered the evidence provided to them by the Council officers, the evidence obtained from inviting representatives and from conducting their own visits to other community groups.

Ascertaining the Extent and Nature of Hate Crime Incidents in the Borough 6.3 The working group considered carefully the evidence provided to them in determining

the current levels of Hate Crime in the borough. The working group considered the evidence submitted by the Safer Communities Co-ordinator, the Borough Commander, the Cabinet Member for Community Engagement and Community Safety and the views of young peoples in the borough.

6.4 The working group agreed with the views of the Cabinet Member and with those

expressed by young peoples in the borough that Hate Crime did not appear to be a major problem in the London Borough of Barnet. The working group concluded that although there were instances of Hate Crime, the problem was not as big of a problem compared to other parts of the country regionally and nationally. However the working group emphasised that where incidents of Hate Crime did occur, they should be taken very seriously and offenders should be prosecuted.

6.5 The working group acknowledged that a lot of the evidence obtained demonstrated that

there were low level nuisance / bad behaviour that could have hate crime elements but serious cases of violent hate motivated crime were very rare in the borough.

Establishing Which Faith Groups, Community Groups and Individuals are Affected by Hate Crime 6.6 Although the working group agreed that Hate Crime did not appear to be a major

problem in the borough they identified that there were certain groups within the borough who had been or were affected by Hate Crime. All of the faith and community groups

19

questioned had expressed that members of their community had suffered from incidents of Hate Crime in the borough. However only one incident was expressed by the representative of the Lesbian and Gay Community as involving physical violence. The working group acknowledged that the overwhelming majority of hate crime incidents in the borough had not been physical but verbal in nature.

6.7 Many representatives from faith and community groups perceived that young peoples

and groups of young peoples were the main perpetrators of Hate Crime. The activities complained of against young peoples included incidents at take away outlets, shouting abuse and incidents on public transport.

6.8 The working group recognised that there was a perception from some groups they

interviewed that many hate crime incidents in the borough were usually committed by groups of young peoples.

6.9 The working group also recognised however that the Council had played a key role in

employing a number of initiatives and strategies to prevent young peoples from engaging in Hate Crime activities. These have been mentioned previously in the report and include the Council employing measures to monitor incidents in schools. This has taken place for approximately the last year and a half and further training for teachers has been provided to educate pupils in tackling Hate Crimes. Additionally the Council were involved with the Multi Agency Racial Harassment Group and the Multi Agency Casework Group which played a key role in tackling hate crime and which involved the Children’s Service acting on behalf of schools in addition to other full partnership representation.

6.10 The working group still considered that despite the excellent work being done, it was still

important for the Council to continue to assist schools as much as possible on promoting equalities and diversities.

Consequences for Community and Social Cohesion 6.11 The working group considered carefully the representations made to them as to the

effect that Hate Crime incidents was having on community and social cohesion. 6.12 The working group noted that some representatives had expressed the fear that elderly

people were frightened to go out within the borough especially on public transport. 6.13 The working group also identified that as a result of work conducted in the wards they

represented, it was noticeable that some communities did not share facilities such as accommodation.

6.14 The Jewish and African Caribbean Community had mentioned that there were aspects

of the police service they were satisfied with. For example the representative from the Community Security Trust referred to the close relationship with the Police and they had been working closely with them for the last 5 years. The representative from the African Caribbean Community mentioned that he had observed a greater police presence on the streets in the borough.

6.15 These sentiments were not shared by all other communities. Representatives from the

Chinese Community expressed their lack of confidence in the Police as a result of Hate Crime incidents and expressed that they needed to produce more effort in combating

20

Hate Crime. Representatives from the Hindu community commented that greater effort was needed by the Police in communicating with especially in their own language.

6.16 The working group concluded that although Hate Crime incidents had affected

community and social cohesion for some communities, there was not a general problem relating to a lack of cohesion. This was identified by the working group from the responses given by the majority of the groups. The working group also noted and appreciated that sections of the Jewish Community had built up good community relations with the Council and the Police as a result of a joint effort to combat Hate Crime.

Role of the Council and the Police 6.17 The working group recognised that there were a lot of positive aspects of the work that

the Council and the Police were conducting in trying to combat Hate Crime. The working group note and praise the Council for its efforts as described in paragraph 9.15 of this report. This was also identified by many communities interviewed by the working group.

6.18 The working group also recognised the excellent links between the Police and the

Council. The working group have made further suggestions to the role that the Council and Police play in combating Hate Crime to assist in providing even greater strength to these links.

Reporting Hate Crime 6.19 The working group recognised that reporting to the Police was not the sole method of

reporting Hate Crimes in the borough. The working group recognised that there were a number of third party reporting sites in the borough. The working group also recognised that the Council operated a reporting hotline.

6.20 The working group also recognised that there were communities who were still reluctant

to report hate crimes. The reasons attributed to this were due to cultural reason, a lack of confidence in the police and council and because of language difficulties.

Hate Literature 6.21 The working group considered the representations made by the representative from the

Union of Jewish Students. The working group decided to note the representations which had been submitted by the representative and concur with his view that the Council could support awareness weeks for faith groups and interfaith events. The working group did note however that the Council did play a major role in promoting such events as the Black History Month and the Holocaust Memorial Day.

6.22 The Recommendations will be circulated separately prior to the meeting.

21

Appendix 3

RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE WORKING GROUP – HATE CRIME REVIEW

1. RECOMMENDATIONS 1.1 That the Committee consider and agree the draft recommendations made

by the working group as outlined below:

• That the Community Protection Group, Safer Communities Team and Safer Neighbourhoods Team continue to establish and maintain links with appropriate Community and Faith groups.

• That the First Class Education and Children Overview and Scrutiny

Committee be requested to investigate what schools are doing to educate pupils about Hate Crime and whether any further initiatives can be employed.

• That consideration is given to increase publicity of Hate Crime reporting

methods in the borough. In relation to younger persons specifically consideration could be given to youth workers acting as third party reporting vehicles given the relationship of relevant young people with their youth workers in the borough.

• That Transport for London work with the Police to ameliorate the problems

regarding issues of young people travelling on busses particularly when travelling to and from school and support the imposition of sanctions such as the removal of their concessions, where young people abuse free travel.

• That the police be requested to provide an update to a future meeting of

the Committee in 6 months of the progress made in tackling hate crime. Recommendations to Cabinet

• That Council members and officers be encouraged to participate in appropriate festivals and events with local communities when invited to attend the same.

• That contact is initiated with the Chinese community, more specifically

with take-away restaurant owners, in relation to reports of racist abuse and related crime suffered by some of the same.

• To note the comments of both the Union of Jewish Students and

Middlesex University in relation to the national issue of race hate literature being circulated within universities and to request periodical monitoring

22

and reporting from the university to ensure that Barnet continues to be free of the same.

• That the Cabinet Member for Community Engagement and Community

Protection be requested to provide future updates to the committee to assist the Committee in its overview and scrutiny function.

2. EXPLANATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS 2.1 The first working group recommendation to the Council and the Police is

that links should be maintained by the Community Protection Group and the Safer Neighbourhood Teams with some of the community and faith groups interviewed. This was particularly relevant to the Chinese, African, Caribbean, Hindu, Learning Disability, Youth and Eastern European Communities. By maintaining links it would ensure that information relating to Hate Crime continues to be communicated and understood better by the various communities and thus raise the profile of the Council and the Police in combating Hate Crime. The working group recognised the good work already carried out by the Community Protection Group and Safer Neighbourhood Teams but also recommends that they be proactive and take the initiative to forge relationships because some communities find it hard to approach authority figures.

2.2 The working group also believe that to further ensure that relationships

were developed and maintained with communities in the borough, council members and officers should be encouraged to attend festivals and community functions. These can also be used as opportunities to inform communities of what was being done to combat Hate Crime building up confidence with the Council whilst also providing communities with essential information on how to report Hate Crimes.

2.3 The working group also believe that there was not enough publicity

surrounding the use of third party reporting sites and methods. This was particularly demonstrated by youths in the borough who were not aware of the various processes. The working group believes that it is necessary to have a greater level of publicity of hate crime reporting methods. In particular the working group believes that the use of adverts in post offices would be very useful in providing information to the public.

2.4 The working group also recognises that there were several issues relating

to the perception of youths in the borough. There was a perception from certain groups that most hate crimes were usually conducted by youths. The working group noted the work being done in schools to promote equalities and diversities but still considered that further investigation was required to further assist schools and identify additional ways in which schools can educate pupils about Hate Crime. The working group realised

23

that any further investigation would fall within the remit of the First Class Education and Children Overview and Scrutiny Committee. As the result the working group believe that it would be prudent to submit a request to the First Class Education and Children Overview and Scrutiny Committee to investigate what schools are doing to educate their pupils about Hate Crime and whether any further initiatives can be employed.

2.5 The working group also believe that there was strong evidence provided

by relevant young persons in the borough that they had close relationships with their respective youth workers and were more inclined to discuss issues of Hate Crime with them as opposed to reporting to third party reporting sites. The working group hence believe that this relationship with youth workers should be optimised and recommends that consideration be given to youth workers acting as a third party reporting vehicle and that they receive the necessary and appropriate training.

2.6 The working group identified that there were issues regarding young

people and them travelling on buses. The particular pressure points were when young people were travelling to and from school. The Committee request that Transport for London work with the Police to ameliorate the problems and supports the imposition of sanctions, such as the removal of their concessions, where young people abuse free travel.

2.7 The working group also believes that a recommendation should be made

to the Police to request that they update the Committee on progress made in tackling hate crime in 6 months time.

24

AGENDA ITEM: 5 Page nos. 1 – 65 (with some appendices to follow)

Meeting Cabinet Date 21 February 2008 Subject Council Budget & Council Tax 2008/09 Report of Leader of the Council and Cabinet Member

for Resources Summary This report sets out the recommendations to Council on

the 2008/09 budget and council tax.

Officer Contributors Deputy Director of Resources and Chief Finance Officer

Status (public or exempt) Public

Wards affected N/A

Enclosures (* denotes to follow)

Appendix A Medium Term Financial Strategy

Appendix B

*

2008/09 Council Budget (i) Revenue summaries (ii) Cost centres and capital projects)

Appendix C * Prudential Code & Borrowing

Appendix D * Forward Plan Summary and Strategy

Appendix E Capping Regime

Appendix F * Comments from Overview & Scrutiny Committees on budget headlines

Appendix G * Contracts For decision by Council

Function of Council

Reason for urgency / exemption from call-in

Not applicable

Contact for further information: Clive Medlam 020 8359 7110.

1

1. RECOMMENDATIONS (for recommendation to full Council)

Cabinet is asked to recommend to Council on 4 March 2008 the following: -

1.1 The council agrees to new prudential borrowing as set out in Appendix B.

1.2 Balances

Council should determine the appropriate level of General Fund balancesafter taking account of all matters set out in the Chief Finance Officer’s report on reserves and balances (paragraphs 9.21 to 9.60).

Revenue Budget and Council Tax

1.3 The forecast revenue outturn for the year 2007/08 and the estimates of income and expenditure for 2008/09 be approved

1.4 That it be noted that the Chief Finance Officer under his delegated powers has calculated the amount of £135,944 (band D equivalents) as the Council Tax base for the year 2008/09 in accordance with Regulation 3 of the Local Authorities (Calculation of Council Tax Base) Regulations 1992 made under Section 33(5) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992.

1.5 That the following amounts be now calculated by the Council for the year 2008/09 in accordance with Sections 32 to 36 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992:-

(a) £823,089,260 being the aggregate of the amounts which the Council estimates for the items set out in Section 32(2)(a) to (e) of the Act;

(b) £585,587,370 being the aggregate of the amounts which the Council estimates for the items set out in Section 32(3)(a) to (c) of the Act;

(c) £237,501,890 being the amount by which the aggregate at 1.5(a) aboveexceeds the aggregate at 1.5(b) above, calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 32(4) of the Act, as its budget requirement for the year;

(d) £90,308,144 being the aggregate of the sums which the Council estimates will be payable for the year into its general fund in respect of redistributed non-domestic rates, revenue support grant or additional grant increased or reduced (as appropriate) by the amount of the sums which the Council estimates will be transferred in the year from:-

(i) its collection fund to its general fund and;

2

(ii) its general fund to its collection fund in accordance with Sections 97(3) and (4) and 98 (4) and (5) respectively of the Local Government Finance Act 1988;

(e) £1,082.75 being the amount at 1.5(c) above less the amount at 1.5(d) above, all divided by the amount at 1.4 above, calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 33(1) of the Act, as the basic amount of its Council Tax for the year 2008/2009;

London Borough of Barnet Valuation Bands (£)A B C D E F G H

721.83 842.14 962.44 1,082.75 1,323.36 1,563.97 1,804.58 2,165.50 being the amounts given by multiplying the amount at 1.5(e) above by the

number which, in the proportion set out in Section 5(1) of the Act, is applicable to dwellings listed in a particular valuation band divided by the number which is in that proportion is applicable to dwellings listed in valuation band D, calculated by the Council, in accordance with Section 36(1) of the Act, as the amounts to be taken into account for the year in respect of categories of dwellings listed in different valuation bands.

1.6 That it be noted that for the year 2008/09 the Greater London Authority has stated the following amounts in precepts issued to the Council, in accordance with Section 40 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, for each of the categories of the dwellings shown below:-

Greater London Authority Valuation Bands (£) (PROVISIONAL)A B C D E F G H

207.50 242.08 276.67 311.25 380.42 449.58 518.75 622.50 1.7 That, having calculated the aggregate in each case of the amounts at 1.5(e)

and 1.6 above, the Council, in accordance with Section 30(2) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, hereby sets the following amounts as the amounts of Council Tax for the year 2008/09 for each of the categories dwellings shown below: -

Council Tax for Area (£) (PROVISIONAL)A B C D E F G H

929.33 1,084.22 1,239.11 1,394.00 1,703.78 2,013.55 2,323.33 2,788.00

3

1.8 (i) That in accordance with Section 38(2) of the Act the Chief Executive be instructed to place a notice in the local press of the amounts set under recommendation 1.7 above pursuant to Section 30 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 within a period of 21 days following the Council’s decision.

Housing Revenue Account and Rents

1.9 That the Housing Revenue Account estimates for 2008/09 be approved.

1.10 That, with effect from Tuesday 1 April 2008:-

(a) The rent of all Council dwellings, with the exception of those included under Recommendation (1.11), be changed in line with the proposals outlined in this report, producing an average increase of 6.3%

(b) That the rents of all properties relet for whatever reason be moved upwards to the formula rent. Where formula rent is below actual rent no reduction will be made.

(c ) That service charges for all tenants of all flats and maisonettes based on the services they receive be increased to the following charges (per week, 48 week basis):-

Caretaking £5.16

Caretaking Plus £6.66

Block Lighting £0.82

Grounds Maintenance £0.53 Quarterly Caretaking £1.03

(d) That there is an increase of 10% on the charge for space and water heating

1.11 That, with effect from Tuesday 1 April 2008: -

(a) The basic rents of dwellings in the Council’s equity sharing scheme at Moorlands Avenue, NW7 be increased as follows:- • Current basic rents of £2,313 to £2,460 per annum • Current basic rents of £2,130 to £2,265 per annum.

(b) The net rents of dwellings in the equity share scheme at Friern Hospital are increased by 6.3%.

1.12 That, with effect from Tuesday 1 April 2008, the rents of Council garages be increased by 10.0%.

4

1.13 That the Chief Executive be instructed to take the necessary action including the service of the appropriate Notices.

Capital Prudential Code and Borrowing Limits

1.14 The Prudential Indicators set out in Appendix C be recommended for approval to Council and that the Chief Finance Officer be authorised to raise loans, as required, up to such borrowing limits as the Council may from time to time determine and to finance capital expenditure from financing and operating leases subject to:

(i) the appropriate provision having been made in the estimates for 2008/09;

(ii) authorisation (where necessary) of the expenditure by the appropriate Government Department;

(iii) a decision of the committee concerned or under delegated/urgency powers to incur the capital expenditure and that the Cabinet Resources be instructed to approve new projects up to the value of surplus resources outlined in this report, having regard to the priorities identified.

Capital

1.15 That the capital programmes be approved, including the additional projects listed in paragraph 9.96, and that the Chief Officers be authorised to take all necessary action to implement them.

1.16 The Chief Finance Officer be authorised to adjust capital project budgets in 2008/09 throughout the capital programme after the 2007/08 accounts are closed and the amounts of slippage and budget carry forward required are known. That where slippage results in the loss of external funding and a new pressure being placed on prudential borrowing, the relevant Director report on options for offsetting this impact by adjusting other capital projects.

Contracts

1.17 That authorisation be given to allow tenders to be sought for contracts listed in Appendix G.

5

Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS)

1.18 To note that the current annual level of prudential borrowing cannot be sustained long term, and that Cabinet must also seriously consider using significant capital receipts generated in future years to repay borrowing rather than fund further expansion of the capital programme (paragraph 9.100).

2 RELEVANT PREVIOUS DECISIONS 2.1 Council Meeting 6th March 2007. 3 CORPORATE PRIORITIES AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 3.1 The new Corporate Plan for the period 2008/09 to 2011/12 updates the 2007/8 plan as the single operational document that is used to guide and monitor the delivery of the Council’s priorities. It sets out the council’s priorities and targets and how the authority goes about meeting them. 3.2 The Corporate Plan is an important part of the Council’s budget and policy making cycle. It provides the forward planning aspect of this framework and has been formulated alongside the Council’s budget for the coming financial year. It will be presented to Cabinet in March and Council in April. 3.3 The Council's budget is a financial expression of its services and levels of provision but also a conditioner of them. It links the priorities and objectives of the Council as expressed in the Corporate Plan having regard to resources available and taxation consequences of spending decisions. 3.4 The Council is required by law to set its budget having considered its estimates of expenditure and income, and for its call on the collection fund to be sufficient to meet its budget needs. This must be done before 11 March 2008 and a meeting of the Council has been arranged for 4 March 2008 to achieve this. 4 RISK MANAGEMENT ISSUES 4.1 The Chief Finance Officer’s assessment of financial risks and advice on reserves and balances is set out in paragraphs 9.21 onwards of this report. 5. EQUALITIES AND DIVERSITY ISSUES 5.1 The budget is aligned with Council priorities, which includes targeted resources on

6

key groups in line with its commitments to equalities and diversity. 6. FINANCIAL, STAFFING, ICT AND PROPERTY IMPLICATIONS 6.1 This whole report is about the council budget and capital programme. 6.2 The Chief Finance Officer is recommending that Cabinet consider this report and specifically paragraphs 9.21 to 9.60 on reserves and balances and determine the appropriate level of balances as £15m with a minimum level of £10m. 6.3 Staffing implications arising from these budget proposals were reported to General Functions Committee on 16 January 2008. 6.4 ICT and property implications are included in the Budget and Forward Plan

statements at Appendix B. 7. LEGAL ISSUES 7.1 It is a requirement of the Local Government Act 2003 that the Council should have regard to the Chief Finance Officer’s report on the adequacy of balances when making the budget calculations. Any decision by Council on the level of reserves that differs from that of the Chief Finance Officer will need to be recorded in the decision to demonstrate the Council had fulfilled this statutory requirement. 7.2 The Local Government Act 2003 requires the Chief Finance Officer to report to Council as part of the budget process on the robustness of the estimates and the adequacy of the proposed financial reserves, although the final decision on the level and utilisation of reserves rests with the Council and this is set out in the Chief Finance Officer’s report later in this paper. 8. CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS 8.1 Financial Regulations (Part 1, Section 2) within the Council Constitution state the following:-

i. Cabinet will finalise its recommendations to Council on the budget, council tax and rent levels taking account of the results of budget consultation. This will normally be in February, following announcement of the Final Local Government Finance Settlement.

7

ii. Cabinet’s recommendations to Council must be made in time for Council to

set the budget and council tax before 11 March of the preceding financial year to the financial year to which the recommended budget and council tax relate.

iii. The budget that Cabinet recommends to Council must be based on

reasonable estimates of expenditure and income, and take account of:-

• outturn forecasts for the current year; • guidance from the Chief Finance Officer on the appropriate level of

reserves, balances and contingencies; • financial risks associated with proposed budget developments,

reductions and ongoing projects; • affordability of prudential borrowing over the period of the council’s

financial forward plan; • recommendations from the external auditor on matters such as the level

of reserves and provisions.

iv. The budget recommended by Cabinet to Council will incorporate the latest projection of income from fees and charges. During the year Cabinet Resources Committee may approve changes to fees and charges, including the introduction of new charges.

8

9 BACKGROUND INFORMATION

PART 1 COUNCIL BUDGET & COUNCIL TAX 2008/09

The Budget Process

9.1 This council has taken a strategic multi-year approach to budget development for many years. Barnet also has a Medium Term Financial Strategy to formalise the Council’s financial aims and intentions and consult local stakeholders as to whether these are consistent with their needs. The strategy is included as Appendix A. 9.2 A preliminary assessment of the 2008/09 budget was set out in the Financial Forward Plan approved by Council in March 2007, which forecast a council tax increase of 7.5% based on information available at the time on Government grants and local spending requirements. Two further models were presented incorporating a contingency for emerging budget pressures and a more pessimistic forecast of no increase in Formula Grant. This was used as the base for the 2008/09 Budget and Forward Plan with the objective of achieving a below inflation tax increase as required by the Medium Term Financial Strategy. 9.3 These preliminary assessments were used to identify overall reduction targets, taking account of corporate priorities. Given the commitments in the MTFS, the likelihood of a challenging Comprehensive Spending Review settlement, with growth pegged below inflation, it was clear that the financial position of the Council would remain challenging and that savings at about the level of previous years (i.e. £12 - £15 million) would be needed. This presented a major challenge given the £59m of savings already achieved by the Council in previous years. 9.4 The need to take early action in planning for future years budgets was clear and the following strategy was adopted:-

• reducing the Council’s overall cost base • challenging existing budget provision and continuing inflationary pressures through further efficiency savings • enhancing the approach to VFM across the Council • continuing the policy led delivery of budget

9.5 The results of the budget process were presented for public consultation at Council on 18 December 2007.

9

Revised Requirements for 2007/08

9.6 The last budget monitor reported to Cabinet Resources Committee on 14 January

forecast balances of £14.4m at 31 March 2008, and an update will be reported to Cabinet Resources Committee on 25 February 2008. The position is discussed later in the report as part of the Chief Financial Officers assessment of the budget in terms of balances and reserves.

9.7 The current position of the HRA is also set out later in the report. Any variations are to be met from the accumulated HRA balance.

The National Framework & 2008/09 Settlement for Barnet 9.8 The Government’s Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) in October 2007

included details of government support to local government over the CSR period. Government claims that the increase in net Aggregate External Finance for local authorities is equivalent to 1% annual growth in real terms over the next three financial years. However, these figures include specific funding for Public Finance Initiative projects and when these are excluded there is no real increase in the second and third years. Government also set a target for local authorities to generate 3% efficiency savings per annum. Overall the CSR was not good news for local government although the implications for each authority were not announced until the Settlement in early December.

9.9 The Local Government Minister announced the first three year provisional Local Government Finance Settlement on 6 December 2007. Consultation on this closed on 8 January 2008. The Final Settlement was debated in Parliament on 4 February 2008. 9.10 Despite it being a three year settlement, figures for 2009/10 and 2011/12 are

provisional, leaving the door open for Ministers to make last minute changes before the start of each year. Nationally, Formula Grant has increased by 3.6% in 2008/09 but in London the average increase is only 2.4% (2.0% for Inner London and 2.9% for Outer London), with increases of 2.8% in 2009/10 and 2.6% in 2010/11.

9.11 The Settlement continues the system of ‘floors’ without ceilings. All authorities above the floor contribute a fixed proportion of their excess above their floor to finance the floor authorities. The minimum grant increases for education and social services authorities in 2008/09 is 2.0% (notional, not cash), 1.75% in 2009/10 and

10

1.5% in 2010/11. 9.12 A summary of Barnet’s grant settlement is set out below. The cash increase excludes specific grants transferring to Formula Grant whilst the percentage increase is adjusted for prior year grant changes to enable a like for like comparison.

Grant Elements 2007/08 Adjusted

Allocations 2008/09

2008/10 Provisional

2010/11 Provisional

£'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 Relative Needs Amount 83,615 87,495 90,606 93,300Relative Resource Amount (54,085) (61,913) (62,109) (62,219)Central Allocation 58,230 62,375 64,561 66,679Floor Damping 532 2,100 (1,108) (3,204)Formula Grant 88,292 90,057 91,950 94,556Cash Increase £'000 2,109 1,893 2,606Adjusted Increase % 2.0% 2.3% 3.0%

9.13 Barnet is at the floor in 2008/9 but provisional figures are slightly above the 2009/11 floors. Even so, every year represents a poor settlement for the Council as inflation and other pressures on a base budget around £220m will always greatly exceed the increase in grant funding on a base budget of around £80m. 9.14 Specific grants totalling £5.7m were transferred to Formula Grant in 2008/09. A significant development has been the introduction of the Area Based Grant which replaced the one year only 2007/08 Local Area Agreement grant. The new ABG is not ring-fenced, which has significant implications that are set out in paragraph 9.36 later in this report. 9.15 The estimated Dedicated Schools Grant for Barnet is:-

2008/09 £193.793m

2009/10 £200.024m

2010/11 £207.433m

These figures are subject to change dependant on pupil numbers, and figures will not be confirmed by DCSF until May or June.

11

9.16 The Government’s guide to the Settlement is available at their website, at the following address:- http://www.local.odpm.gov.uk/finance/0809/simpguids.pdf

Capping

9.17 The Minister’s statement on the Settlement included an expectation that council tax increases in England should be substantially below 5% and that he would not hesitate to use reserve capping powers to protect council tax payers from excessive increases. Further details on the capping regime are set out in Appendix E.

Council Budget 2008/09 9.18 Following receipt of the Provisional Local Government Finance Settlement, Cabinet’s draft budget proposals were announced to Council on 18 December 2007. Incorporating £9.5m of efficiency savings the provisional council tax increase was 3.5%, well below the current level of inflation and as required by in the Council’s Medium Term Financial Strategy. 9.19 The budget being recommended to Council on 4 March 2008 is set out in detail in

Appendix C. The position is largely unchanged from that announced at Council in December and the proposed council tax increase for Barnet is now 3.49%, still well below the current rate of inflation (4.1%) as measured by the Retail Prices Index for January.

9.20 Setting the budget is an extremely complex exercise. There are a several

significant issues and proposals that have been considered in detail as part of the budget process with the aim of setting a robust and balanced budget to achieve the Corporate Plan objectives and align with the Medium Term Financial Strategy. These are reported in more detail as part of the Chief Finance Officer’s assessment of the Council’s financial standing.

Chief Finance Officer’s Report on Balances and Reserves

9.21 The Local Government Act 2003 places a duty on the Chief Finance Officer to report to Council as part of the budget process on the robustness of the estimates and the adequacy of the proposed financial reserves. 9.22 Professional guidance published in January 2003 by CIPFA recommends that account should be taken of several key financial assumptions underpinning the budget alongside the authority’s financial management arrangements. The

12

Council’s Financial Regulations1 reflect this guidance as set out above in Constitutional Powers, paragraph 8.1 (iii) 9.23 The Chief Finance Officer’s review, recommendations for General Fund and HRA balances and impact on decisions that Council must make on the 2008/09 Budget follow.

Services’ record in delivering budget developments & reductions 9.24 Barnet has a history of poor grant settlements with the council on the grant floor in four out of the six years to 2008/9. In 2003/04 the settlement did not provide sufficient grant to achieve the required level of “passporting” to the Schools Budget, which required an additional contribution to be made from council tax. From 2006/07 to 2008/09 the council has received only the minimum grant increase, which has been insufficient to meet inflationary pressures let alone pressures from increased service demands and the cost of new capital investment. 9.25 Over the six year period 2003/04 to 2008/09, the Council budgeted to deliver efficiency savings, service reductions and increased income totalling £69m in order to compensate for the poor grant settlements and deliver low council tax increases. Because the Schools Budget is ring-fenced, these budget reductions had to be delivered entirely from the non-schools budget, which for 2007/08 amounted to £223m (55% of total net service expenditure). 9.26 Achieving base budget reductions of £69m in six years is a significant undertaking and some slippage in this is inevitable, and in respect to budget decisions for 2002/03 to 2007/08 a total of £6.3m (9%) has been added back to the base budget in subsequent years. However, these base adjustments for 2007/08 amounted to only £0.1m and the previous two years were around £1m per annum, which reflects improvements in budget estimating and forecasting over earlier years. 9.27 Delivering savings of the level budgeted for in recent years is a substantial executive and management undertaking, which until December 2005 was not helped by having to respond to annual Government grant settlements just three months prior to the start of the financial year. Given this context I do not consider that slippage of this order gives any real cause for concern, but slippage has nonetheless occurred and is, therefore, a factor that must be taken into account in making a recommendation to Council on the level of General Fund balances.

1 Financial Regulations, Part 1, Section 2.5

13

9.28 On the other side of the coin is the risk that the cost of budget developments and

pressures has been underestimated. Given the grant settlements that Barnet has received in recent years the level of service developments (excluding base budget pressures and the cost of prudential borrowing to fund capital investment) has not been significant at £3.3m in 2003/04, £2.4m in 2004/05, £0.2m in 2005/06, £1.0m in 2006/07 and £1.0m in 2007/08.

9.29 Developments are also provided for within the capital programme, where the risk of overspending or failure to deliver planned external funding contributions translates into revenue budget pressures through increased prudential borrowing and/or reductions in interest earnings on unused capital receipts. Over recent years there have been some overspends on capital projects, but there have also been improvements in the reporting of capital monitoring to Cabinet Resources Committee and the Capital & Assets Group has sought to improve the initial estimating of projects before they get incorporated in the capital programme. 9.30 In summary there remain significant risks to the council’s ability to deliver efficiencies and developments within budget. Tighter budgeting in 2007/8 has improved the delivery of savings and reduced the risk of slippage. Even so, slippage is still a possibility and would require a call on balances if compensatory savings were not identified.

Capacity to Manage In-Year Budget Pressures 9.31 Following on from the Section 11 Notice in February 2004 the council’s financial

standing, measured in terms of the level of balances, has considerably improved. The gross budget in 2007/08 is £785m, but in terms of assessing financial risks it is more appropriate to combine this figure with fees and charges, income and specific grants, which produces a total just over £1.35bn. In commercial terms this represents a significant level of “turnover” and variances from budget are inevitable, particularly when a significant amount of expenditure (e.g. adult and children’s services) and income (e.g. local land charges and planning fees) is demand-led. It should be borne in mind, however, that even just a 1% variance equates to £13m.

9.32 In considering the council’s capacity to manage in-year budget pressures I have reviewed the budget volatility reported in budget monitoring during the current and previous two years. The position (excluding schools and the HRA) is summarised below, although it should be recognised that improvements in interest earnings have contributed significantly to the underspends shown, especially in the last three

14

financial years:-

Outturn Year Overspends Underspends Net Interest Benefit

£m £m £m £m 2003/04 15.4 (13.5) 1.9 0.002004/05 15.4 (16.5) (1.1) (1.76)2005/06 8.9 (12.0) (3.1) (4.30)2006/07 4.9 (7.0) (2.1) (4.25)2007/08 (M9) 6.1 (11.0) (4.9) (5.00)

9.33 As with the delivery of budget developments and reductions, I do not consider these in-year variances to be exceptional and management action has always enabled some savings to be identified in-year to compensate for overspends. Nonetheless, variances have occurred and are, therefore, a factor that must be taken into account in making a recommendation to Council on the level of General Fund balances.

Budget Risks 9.34 The officer Key Priorities Board established three years ago has continued to work through the 2008/09 budget process, to monitor progress and make recommendations to the Council Directors Group and Cabinet. The process of peer challenge facilitates a policy review of all draft budget proposals and an assessment of the risk of non-delivery of savings. It also reduces the risk of “cost shunting” between services. 9.35 Council Directors Group and Cabinet have considered financial risks in developing the 2008/09 budget. Items considered to represent the greatest risk to the council’s financial standing are set out below under three sub-headings – (i) base budget, (ii) budget reductions, and (iii) contingent liabilities.

Risks: Base Budget 9.36 These are core budgets that are constantly subject to risks from external factors like service demand and Government policy change, which can typically emerge during the financial year.

• Rents, fees & charges

15

These income streams total around £75m next year. The council has experienced significant shortfalls in previous years in some areas, e.g. parking income and local land charges.

• Specific grants

For the first time, specific grants were announced in December 2007 for a three year period, which significantly aids forward planning in the medium term. Figures for the latter two years are nonetheless provisional, so risk is not totally removed, and some specific risks are addressed under the section on contingent liabilities.

Area Based Grant (ABG) replaces Local Area Agreement (LAA) grant in 2008/09. The various grants are aggregated by Government into a single monthly payment. Unlike LAA grant, ABG comes with no conditions and it is for the council to determine spending priorities. This is a significant change in the funding regime, which enables the council to review and challenge expenditure that was previously “protected” by the fact that it was grant funded. This flexibility though comes at a price – ABG is now nothing more than a second allocation of Formula Grant, but with one significant exception – there is no floor protection at the end of the three year funding period.

• Interest and debt management

Daily fluctuations in interest rates can affect cashflow and short and long term borrowing. In-year net gains have provided an offset for some significant overspends in recent years, and have been the major contributor to the level of General Fund balances the council now has. The 2008/09 budget consolidates a further improvement of £0.7m next year, but there is already strong market speculation of interest rate cuts from the Bank of England ahead of the start of the financial year, and the advance borrowing for PSCIP (at a sub 4% rate) will begin to be drawn down during 2008/09 as the programme of works commences.

• Council Tax collection

Around £183m in council tax will be collected in 2008/09 to support the council and GLA budgets. Barnet has the largest taxbase in London by a large margin, and has the 5th largest taxbase in the country. Non-collection of council tax measured in fractions of percentage points can have a significant impact on the budget – the budgeted 1.5% non-collection rate amounts to £2.88m. Over-estimation of the tax base can have the same consequences.

16

• Housing benefit subsidy and temporary accommodation The net cost of housing benefits (£2m) masks the gross spend of £162m. In addition, the council will be spending £8.5m on temporary accommodation. Government has continued the recent trend of reducing subsidy into 2008/09, and further complicates budget planning by constantly amending regulations. Management action to counter the loss of subsidy is incorporated in the budget, but quite small changes (e.g. in subsidy rates) can be magnified by the scale of the gross expenditure.

• Placements

Budgets for placements and associated direct costs (e.g. transport) in Adults and Children’s Services exceed £100m. These budgets are at significant risk from changes in demand and movements in inflation, particularly where contracts are in place.

• Public Law Family Fees.

The Government issued the Public Law Family Fees Consultation Paper on 19 December, with an 11 March deadline for response on three options. The options are not fully developed and so are not capable of being fully costed before the budget is set. The paper also proposed that public funding will no longer be available for local authority residential assessments and that additional provision may be required to recognise that change. Until details are confirmed, a contingency provision of £300,000 has been made, pending an assessment of the cost to services and a full report back to Cabinet Resources Committee as part of budget monitoring, since despite the consultation deadline, CLG made changes to councils’ responsibilities in the final grant settlement on 24 January.

• Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG).

The figure included in the budget (£194m) is only an estimate, as the grant is wholly based on annual surveys of the number of pupils in schools and in under-5 settings as at January and these figures are still being collated by DCSF who will not finalise the grant figure until May. If children numbers are lower than anticipated, then the centrally retained budgets within the DSG will need to be reviewed, and savings made in year. The risk of this will be minimised by officers continuing to review the pupil numbers information available before finalising detailed budgets for schools and central DSG budgets.

17

Risks: Budget Reductions 9.37 There is always a risk that some planned savings will not be achieved, either due to a delay or incorrect assumptions – it is not practical to remove this risk by only including budget savings that have already been achieved. Delays are one thing, but incorrect assumptions are of greater concern as they can lead to a base budget problem in the following year as well. Items considered to represent the greatest risk to the council’s financial standing are set out below.

• Adult Services contracting efficiencies These amount to £2.3m in 2008/09 and £2.5m in later years, to be delivered through a variety of measures:- making in-house services competitive in the market, using a fairer pricing tool to reduce costs of external contracts for individuals, moving from traditional contracted institutional care to individualised budgets and direct payments. Achieving contracting savings always require a lot of management input, they are not simply achieved by stopping doing something, but the risks are minimised here by having funding in place to deliver the changes.

• Looked after children external placements

This is already commented on in the section on base budget risks, but is repeated here because there is a budgeted £300,000 saving in 2008/09.

• Service reorganisations and reconfigurations (£3.15m)

These efficiency savings amount to £3.15m in total, and in aggregate represent a risk.

Risks: Contingent Liabilities

9.38 This section highlights potential one-off or ongoing expenditure that could arise in 2008/09 or later years.

• Adults – Brent Teaching Primary Care Trust (BTPCT) The council is currently disputing a care responsibility that the BTPCT is attempting to transfer to us, and a number of other councils. The potential ongoing liability for Barnet is £0.8m, with a slightly higher figure in 2008/09. If the council is not successful in resisting these claims (submitted in May 2007) there is a real risk that other PCTs will follow the same approach, thereby exposing the council to considerable financial risk both for continuing health care funding and particularly with respect to old long stay clients.

18

• Adults – residential care top-up fees

A complaint has been received from a family claiming that they should not be paying a top up to a care home, which started over four years ago. A second family with a relative in the same care home has now approached the Ombudsman about the same issue, but this case is being taken through the complaints procedure initially. Should the Ombudsman find against Barnet, this case has potentially significant implications for Barnet and the rest of the country.

• Adults – strategic S.256 learning disabilities agreement

Work is progressing on a transfer of learning disability clients and funding from the PCT to the council from 1 April 2008. There are risks associated with the contract, but also benefits for both parties. If the deal goes ahead the S.256 Agreement will need to be approved by Cabinet as it is not yet included in the budget..

• Children’s – post 16 funding transfer

The transfer of 16-19 funding for schools and colleges from the Learning & Skills Council to local authorities commences in January 2010, with legislation enabling this planned for 2008/09. A risk assessment will need to be undertaken on this transfer as part of the 2009/10 budget process.

• Children’s – Children & Young Person’s Bill & Education & Skills Bill

Two Bills included in the Queen's Speech on 6 November 2007 represent financial risks within the Children's Service.

The key proposals in the Children's & Young Person's Bill are:-

• reform of the statutory framework around the care system focused on the needs of the child;

• councils given power to test different models of organising social care by commissioning and regulating services;

• placing the role of designated teacher on a statutory footing and ensuring that children in care do not move school in year 10 and 11 except in exceptional circumstance;

• improving the financial support available to care leavers who go on to higher education;

• ensuring children in care and custody are visited regularly and have a voice in the decision making when they move into independence;

• extending the duty to visit children in youth custody ;

19

• seeking to improve the support for children cared for by family and friend carers.

The main financial risks arising from the Bill are that councils may not be given sufficient resources to implement the new requirements effectively. There are especially big challenges around securing a sufficient diverse and high standard of care placements, in particular given the potential impact of children leaving care at an older age.

The key proposals in the Education & Skills Bill are:

• raising the minimum age at which young people can leave education or training to 18;

• implementing key elements of Leitch review into long term skill needs; • new duties which will be placed on young people, parents and employers

to ensure or encourage children to participate in education; • new registration duties on providers and local authorities in relation to

people with special educational needs.

This Bill is merely one element in the reform of 14-19 learning including the inherent risks associated with the transfer of funding from LSC to local authorities.

• Children’s - Review of the distribution for Dedicated Schools Grant from 2011/12

DSG for 2008/11 is distributed using the “spend plus” method, but there will be a review of the formula for distributing school and early years funding with the aim of developing a single formula based on relative needs and costs rather than current expenditure – this would be effective from 2011/12. The review will start from the premise that the ring-fence on DSG will remain, although Ministers claim that the review will examine the scope for greater flexibility in the use of DSG to support the delivery of Every Child Matters outcomes and implementation of the Children’s Plan.

• Corporate – new Local Area Agreement (LAA)

Barnet’s Local Strategic Partnership (LSP) is responsible for the new LAA, which comes into effect in May 2008. This is after the 2008/09 budget and spending priorities have been set, which creates a risk that final performance targets agreed with Government may not align with the funding agreed by partners.

The council remains the Accountable Body and has the lead role in ensuring the

20

funding and delivery of performance targets by partner bodies, but recent guidance is that partners core funding is not subject to determination by the LSP, which removes a risk of council funding being reduced without our consent.

As explained under the specific grants section, Area Based Grant may be

reduced or withdrawn as either a Government funding decision or as a sanction against poor performance against targets.

• Corporate – litigation

Legal Services are currently managing a significant number of actual and potential litigation cases from across the council. These have been risk assessed at a potential cost of £0.6m in total, a figure much lower than the worst case scenario.

Separate from this is the deficit claim from Catalyst Housing Group in April 2007 in respect of the period April 2001 to March 2006, and a second claim in July 2007 for the year 2006/07. The sums involved have been reported previously to Cabinet Resources Committee as exempt information. Both claims have been rejected by the Council, and whilst the next formal step open to Catalyst is to refer their claims to arbitration, positive dialogue has been maintained with them in order to seek a negotiated settlement. Such a settlement would look at the scope and cost of the contract going forward (it expires in 2016) and a settlement of the site swaps agreements involving the Perryfields and Merrivale care homes, as well as the deficit claims. Subject to satisfactory negotiations, a target date of early summer has been set for a conclusion.

• Corporate – capitalisation of redundancies

The council’s strategy is to capitalise redundancies arising from budget decisions and major restructurings, but the ability to do this always rests on a Ministerial decision to provide the necessary Direction. If this is not given, the cost falls back on revenue. This risk significantly increased by the Government conducting an annual bidding process against a cap set by the Treasury, and in 2006/07 bids nationally exceeded the Treasury cap and were all scaled back to 57% of the amount requested. Stage 2 approval of up to £2m has been given for 2007/08 although this is no guarantee of an equivalent amount in 2008/09.

• Corporate – pay awards and inflation

All service budgets face ongoing pay and inflationary pressures not recognised by Government grant settlements. Where the budget provision is insufficient,

21

costs will need to be contained within service budgets to limit the call on balances and reduce the pressure on the following year’s base budget.

• Corporate – North London Waste Authority (NLWA)

The NLWA considered a preliminary budget report on 20 December 2006, which outlined a £600m programme of capital investment in new facilities over the next ten years. A major driver of this programme is the need to stay within the landfill targets set by Government. Because there has been no increase in Government funding to help local authorities achieve these targets, the NLWA levy is anticipated to double by 2015/16. Our 2008/09 budget already shows a substantial increase in the levy to allow for the costs of the procurement process, although the NLWA continues to investigate the scope for obtaining PFI credits towards the costs of constructing new facilities.

• Corporate – pay and grading review

Single Status has been completely dealt with in Barnet, but there is ongoing work to do around equal pay reviews.

• Corporate – market loans

Borrowing for capital investment comes from two sources, the Public Works Loans Board (PWLB) and the market. Volatility in interest rates has already been mentioned but there is an added risk in respect to the market loans taken out in the form of Lender Option Borrower Option loans (LOBOs). These tie the council into a fixed rate for an initial period of years, after which the lender has the option at regular intervals (the most frequent option being every 6 months) to change the interest rate. The borrower (the council) has the option of accepting the rate change or repaying the debt, the decision being based on the rates currently in the market should the council need to refinance the loan. It is important to stress that the risk here is not whether the borrowing instruments are sound, it’s the impact that future interest rate movements might have.

• Corporate – changes to Statements of Recommended (Accounting) Practice

Changes to SORPs are not always just technical changes to statements in the final accounts, they can sometimes have a direct impact on the budget and Council Tax. One major change currently being considered by CIPFA and the wider accounting standards community is accounting for depreciation, which could place “real” charges into the budget.

• Corporate – Spending Review 2009

There is no information on government grant after 2010/11 as this will be

22

determined by the next Government Spending Review, likely to be announced in the summer of 2009. It is almost certain that the current trend in reduced public expenditure growth will continue with sub or zero inflation grant increases and that grant will continue to be redirected away from London. There is also the risk over Area Based Grant, which by 2010/11will be at least £21m in total, being outside the grant floor regime. Therefore, it is even more critical for the council to maintain it’s financial standing.

• Corporate – regeneration schemes

The four estate regeneration schemes (West Hendon, Grahame Park, Dollis Valley and Stonegrove) are progressing and the Principal Development Agreements on the first two are already signed, with a third anticipated by the end of 2007/08. Risks associated with these projects have been clearly set out in reports to Cabinet and Cabinet Resources Committee throughout their development, but an element of residual risk remains for a long period of time. Over time as the housing assets transfer from council (HRA) ownership to registered social landlords, the maintenance of surrounding land will revert from the HRA to General Fund. There is a risk that this transfer of responsibility will not be reflected fully in future years’ grant settlements.

• Housing – Subsidy and viability of the HRA

The national housing subsidy system is a mechanism for redistributing resources between local housing authorities and in 2008/9 Barnet must repay £10.9m to the pool. The subsidy settlement for 2008/09 is far tougher than originally anticipated and it creates a risk to the future financial viability of the HRA if repayments continue to increase.

• Environment & Transport – Waste Performance Efficiency Grant (WPEG)

Barnet received nearly £800,000 in WPEG in 2007/08, which has funded the green waste collection service as well as new and replacement recycling containers. The grant is replaced in 2008/09 by the London Recycling Fund, and new London Waste and Recycling Board will manage and allocate the fund. The lack of clarity at this time creates a financial risk.

• Environment & Transport – recycling and transport contracts

These contracts are due to be awarded in February 2008, but after this report has been finalised. Despite the recycling contract being expanded it is currently believed that both these contracts can be contained within existing budget provisions, but clearly until final bids are received and evaluated these remain a base budget risk.

23

• Planning & Environmental Protection – Community Infrastructure Levy &

Planning Delivery Grant Government has shelved its proposal to implement a Planning Gain Supplement and has introduced provisions in the Planning Bill for the new Community Infrastructure Levy, which, Ministers claim, will establish a better way to increase investment in the infrastructure needed by growing communities. The new powers will allow councils to set a CIL for their area following an assessment of local infrastructure needs and consultation with their local community. Different types and sizes of development would pay different amounts depending on local needs to help ensure that the new infrastructure needed to maintain sustainable growth is provided. It is anticipated that local councils will be able to take advantage of these powers from spring 2009. Details will need assessing in relation to the requirements of Barnet and in particular the extent to which funding can be used for both capital and revenue purposes.

In 2008/09 PDG is being replaced by a combination of increases in fees and the new Housing & Planning Delivery Grant (HPDG). At the time of finalising this report the method for allocating HPDG had not been agreed, although it is likely to rely heavily on councils meeting housing growth targets and satisfactory completion of the Local Development Framework. It is likely that our allocation will not be known until summer 2008, but around £0.4m will be required in addition to increased fees to ensure equivalent funding is available to that received under PDG.

• Planning & Environmental Protection – land charges

Introduction of Home Information Packs and an associated continued increase in the number of personal search companies has led to a significant reduction in the number of searches conducted, and hence a reduction in income. This trend is likely to continue into 2008/09 and a predicted down-turn in the housing market is likely to further impact on income levels which are presently budgeted at above £1.5m in 2008/09. Government continues to consult on proposals to set fees centrally or direct how they should be calculated which continues the uncertainty and represents a risk.

• Resources – accommodation strategy

Risks in future years arise from the present position of having moved away from freehold to leasehold accommodation, in the form of:-

24

o uncertainty on periodic rent reviews; o our ability to downsize the amount of space we rent in line with reductions

in the staffing establishment and introduction of alternative working arrangements (e.g. home and mobile working);

o dilapidations costs at the end of the lease terms. • Capital – children’s centres

Together for Children (TFC) have now agreed a programme of slippage for each individual children's centre up to December 2008. This agreed spending profile funded from Sure Start grant is achievable within the current children's centre building programme and as a result risks have been significantly reduced. In the event of any further slippage in the programme, there could be a risk that the commitment to the building work would remain but the grant is not claimable. However, a contingency plan is in place to finance any unfunded contractual commitments.

• Capital – Primary Schools Capital Investment Strategy (PSCIP)

The scale and complexity of the capital investment creates an unavoidable risk to the council, but awards and praise from external assessors for the quality of project management and financial planning demonstrates risks are being actively managed. There is a lot of speculation currently about a possible downturn in the housing market, which comes just as we are about to commence the marketing of the first packages of surplus land – these receipts representing the largest component of the programme funding package. Quite how this will play out within Barnet is an unknown and hence a risk.

• Capital – East Barnet School

A decision has been to change architects working on this project as set out in the Leader and Cabinet Member’s delegated powers report in January 2008. This change represents an action to mitigate against a risk within the project, but clearly going back a stage creates other risks, including the need to re-apply for planning consent.

• Capital – School projects programme slippage

The following school projects’ income and expenditure profiles have changed which represent risk to the council in terms of external funding lapsing leaving the council with additional borrowing requirements.

£2.4m slippage is projected on the redevelopment of The Hyde School and provision of a children’s centre. Approval has been received from the Department of Children, Families and Schools

25

(DCFS) to slip £0.5m of the Sure Start grant funding beyond March 2008 for the children’s centre;

£1.7m slippage is expected on the project to build a children’s centre at Underhill Infants School which is funded predominantly by Surestart grant. Approval has been received from DCFS to roll forward £1.0m of grant funding, which was originally required to be used by 31 March 2008, into 2008/09;

£4.7m slippage is projected on the redevelopment of Parkfield School and resources will need to be re-profiled.

• Capital – capital receipts

A prudent assumption has been made on the level of capital receipts being generated in future years, based on experience. It remains the case, however, that unless the council can identify and complete on a number of £1m+ deals over the period of the Financial Forward Plan, then the current annual increase in prudential borrowing the council is budgeting for will not be sustainable for many more years as the cost of financing this debt will become a significant fixed element of the base budget.

• Capital – depot

The council’s depot forms part of the Mill Hill East Area Action Plan and will be disposed of at some point in the next few years. Alternative locations are being considered, and there will be capital and revenue implications of the move to a new site.

• Capital – Capping of Prudential Borrowing

Since the introduction of Prudential Borrowing, the Government has retained reserve powers to limit local government borrowing, either due to national borrowing exceeding macro targets or at the local level where individual authorities could be nominated as using excessive borrowing. Restrictions on planned borrowing could seriously hinder the council in achieving it’s corporate objectives. To date, this power has never been invoked but it remains a potential risk, especially with the slow down in economic and public sector growth.

Relevant External Audit comments

9.39 The Council was served with a Section 11 Notice by the External Auditor in February 2004, as part of the Annual Audit Letter for 2003/04. The primary concern of the External Auditor at that time was the level of balances and insurance

26

provision. Subsequent annual External Audit reports have highlighted the Council’s positive rapid progress in rebuilding balances and provisions but have also emphasised the need to maintain adequate balances of at least £10m (excluding schools).

9.40 The External Auditor’s interim report for 2006/07 noted that the General Fund balances are still low when compared to neighbouring Councils and recommends that the Council continues to maintain adequate levels of reserves as a cushion against unplanned expenditure in future years.

General Fund Balances

9.41 The following summarises the current forecast of General Fund balances, as reported to Cabinet Resources Committee on 14 January 2008.

£m

Balances @ 31 March 2007 12.099

Forecast Variations in 2007/08 (1.649)

Benefits Subsidy Claim 2006/07 1.547

Investment Return 5.000

Allocations agreed from balances (2.590)

Forecast Balances @ 31 March 2008 14.407

9.42 Cabinet Resources Committee noted the positive variations relating to the Benefits final subsidy claim and the investment surplus that together amount to £6.5m. These are windfall gains and cannot be assumed in future years. When these are excluded there is a base overspend of £1.6m which may, if not addressed, result in the depletion of balances in future years.

9.43 There is no assumption about the receipt of LABGI in 2007/08. In the 2005/6 and

2006/07 years, Barnet received £2.2m and £3.5m respectively which contributed to rebuilding General Fund balances. Recently there have been legal challenges to the LABGI calculation and the latest case has prevented CLG from distributing the grant for 2007/08. Whilst we can reasonably expect further grant in 2007/08 it is impossible to assess the amount pending the resolution of the latest dispute. Early signs are that further reasons for changes in rateable value will be incorporated into the Year 3 calculation, which is likely to spread the remaining funding over a much larger number of councils.

27

9.44 I have previously recommended £10m as minimum balance. This was in line with views previously expressed by the External Auditor and was a specific recommendation approved by Cabinet on 27 February 2006 and endorsed by Council on 7 March 2006. As mentioned previously, External Audit reports have noted that Barnet’s balances have been low when compared to neighbouring Councils balances which for outer London averages £15m. This figure, however, takes no account of the relative size of authorities and Barnet, as one of the largest councils in London, might be expected to have reserves in excess of the average. 9.45 The Chief Finance Officer is strongly advising Members to support a target

balance of £15m, to allow some flexibility and buffer against in year overspending and unforeseen pressures. This would allow the Council to use balances in the short term without jeopardising the £10m minimum balance in the long term. General Fund Specific Reserves

9.46 The Capital Projects reserve provides for one-off expenditure across the capital programme that does not meet the test for capitalisation, and is also available to meet exceptional costs in delivering capital receipts. Some of this reserve has already been allocated to office moves resulting from the sale and lease of sites at Hendon to Middlesex University. The Restructure Reserve provides for severance costs should the necessary Ministerial Directions to capitalise not be obtained. The other significant reserve is for litigation costs. Most of these reserves are likely to be exhausted within a couple of years and Cabinet may need to be make further provisions for these in later years of the Financial Forward Plan, in accordance with the policy set out in the Medium Term Financial Strategy.

General Fund Specific Reserves 2008/9 (£’000)

Opening Balance

Potential Changes

Closing Balance

Capital Projects 4,000 (2,000) 2,000Restructure Reserve 3,686 (2,000) 1,686Utilities Reserve 500 (500) 0IS License Reserve 636 (636) 0Litigation 2,500 2,500

11,322 (5,136) 6,186Committed Later Years

PFI Street Lighting 1,716 1,716Lottery 105 105Totals 13,143 (5,136) 8,007

28

Summary & Recommendations of the Chief Finance Officer

9.47 The Council is required by the Local Government Act 2003 to take into account advice from its Chief Finance Officer on the level of balances and reserves. It is also required to take into account any relevant advice provided by the External Auditor.

9.48 LAAP2 Bulletins are intended to provide guidance that represents good financial

management and which should be followed as a matter of course. LAAP Bulletin 55 is a “Guidance Note on Local Authority Reserves & Balances” and advises that if the advice of the Chief Finance Officer is not accepted, this should be recorded formally in the minutes of the Council meeting that approves the council budget. Section 7.2 of this guidance states:- The level and utilisation of reserves will be determined formally by the Council, informed by the advice and judgement of the CFO. To enable the Council to reach its decision, the CFO should report the factors that influenced his/her judgement (in accordance with paragraph 6.2) and ensure that the advice given is recorded formally. Where the CFO’s advice is not accepted this should be recorded formally in the minutes of the council meeting.”

9.49 The following table summarises my assessment of the level of financial risks set out earlier in this report:-

Summary of Financial Risks 2008/09 Later Years

SERVICES’ RECORD IN DELIVERING BUDGET DEVELOPMENTS & REDUCTIONS At present there are no significant issues that cause me concern with the council’s ability to deliver efficiencies and developments within budget, although experience of the past four years would suggest that some slippage is inevitable and would result in a call on balances if compensatory savings were not identified. The more the base budget is reduced, however, the harder it becomes to deliver savings.

Low

Medium

CAPACITY TO MANAGE IN-YEAR BUDGET PRESSURES As with the delivery of budget developments and reductions, I do not consider in-year variances in previous years to be exceptional and management action has always enabled some savings to be identified to compensate for overspends, although a significant

Low

Low

2 Local Authority Accounting Panel (LAAP)

29

Summary of Financial Risks 2008/09 Later Years proportion of this relates to improved interest earnings. Nonetheless, variances have occurred and are, therefore, a factor that must be taken into account in making a recommendation to Council on the level of General Fund balances

KEY FINANCIAL ASSUMPTIONS UNDERPINNING THE BUDGET, ROBUSTNESS OF FORWARD PLAN ESTIMATES & BUDGET PROVISIONS TO COVER MAJOR UNFORESEEN RISKS There are a large number of risks to the 2008/09 and future years’ budgets set out in this report, some of which could have a significant impact on balances if they materialise.

Medium

High

9.50 There is no formula for calculating the appropriate level of balances, but it should be

determined after taking into account the financial risks facing the council. The council can certainly be managed with lower balances, but this creates a serious risk of every adverse budget variation during the year becoming a crisis. The council’s decision making would be continually overshadowed by a weak financial position, diverting executive and management attention from all the other corporate priorities around service delivery.

9.51 The level of council balances also has a direct link to the council’s score on various aspects of CPA and CAA in future. Within that context, a low level of balances also reduces the council’s ability to take risks and so reduces the opportunity to make innovative improvements to service delivery and deliver further efficiency savings.

9.52 Having taken into account the forecast level of balances and specific reserves

at 31 March 2008, it remains the Chief Finance Officer’s recommendation that General Fund balances should not be allowed to fall below £10m. In addition, he recommends that the council aims to match the outer London average of £15m to protect us from short term pressures that may require the drawing down from reserves and reducing balances below the £10m minimum. This is in the light of the risks set out in this report. Any drawing from balances has to be made good in the following year’s base budget, which would compound the risks in that year and weaken the Council’s financial standing should the minimum level be breached.

9.53 Cabinet also needs to continue its rigorous budget monitoring during the coming year and claw back a windfall of underspends to the centre.

30

9.54 In responding to these recommendations, Cabinet and the Council must decide what it considers to be the appropriate level of balances given all the factors set out by the Chief Finance Officer. If it considers an appropriate level to be less than the £10m recommended then it must recognise that this decision must be recorded at the Council meeting that sets the 2008/09 budget and council tax.

Prudential Borrowing 9.55 The Prudential Code enables councils to borrow without Government approval,

subject to the cost of borrowing being affordable in future years. The poor settlement outlined in this report makes no provision for any increase in any borrowing over 2007/08. Nevertheless, the Financial Forward Plan provides for affordable prudential borrowing as set out in Appendix B, over the next three years. Provision for the additional cost of this borrowing has been contained within the recommended budget. The Council should recognise this considerable achievement and approve the level of prudential borrowing set out in Appendix B.

Housing Revenue Account

9.56 The Local Government & Housing Act 1989 requires the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) to be maintained as a ring-fenced account and prescribed the debits and credits for it. Any surpluses generated from the HRA can be used to support the account when it fails to break even and for any one year a budget can be set such that there is a drawing on balances, but it is not permissible for an overall HRA budget deficit to be set. It is for the Council to determine what level of balances should be maintained. At 31 March 2007 the HRA balances were £4.835m, and are forecast to be £4.895m at 31 March 2008. 9.57 The principal items of expenditure within the HRA are management and maintenance costs, together with charges for capital expenditure (depreciation and interest). This is substantially met by rent and service charge income from dwellings, garages and commercial premises. However, the national housing subsidy system is a mechanism for redistributing resources between local housing authorities and in 2008/9 Barnet has to repay £10.9m to the pool – this figure is increasing annually. The subsidy settlement for 2008/09 (notified in January 2008) is far tougher than originally anticipated, as it is for all London Boroughs. This year’s settlement was for one year only as the Government has signalled its intention to review the housing revenue account subsidy system during 2008/9.

31

9.58 It has been the practice in earlier years to use some of the surpluses generated from the HRA to finance capital investment in the housing stock as capital resources are scarce. This can only be done in future if the level of balances is high enough to meet any contingencies that may arise. The immediate issue for the HRA is, therefore, to return to a position of budget surplus to maintain a healthy position and generate further resources for capital investment. 9.59 The financial forward plan for the HRA currently shows a draw down on balances

for all but the coming year. This position cannot be sustained in the long term and the Council together with Barnet Homes is reviewing the business plan with a view to bringing the HRA back into surplus in future years. There is clearly a high risk with the HRA at present and the position will need to be closely monitored.

FOR DECISION BY COUNCIL 9.60 Council should, taking account of all matters set out in this report, determine what it considers to be the appropriate level of General Fund and HRA balances.

Greater London Authority 9.61 The Greater London Authority (GLA) precept incorporates the following budget requirements:-

• Mayor’s Office • GLA Assembly These three components are split for the first time • Corporate admin • Transport for London • London Development Agency • Metropolitan Police Authority • London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority • 2012 Olympics Bid

9.62 The Mayor issued his draft budget for consultation on 14 December 2007,

proposing a precept increase of 2.43%. His final budget is due to be considered by the London Assembly on 13 February 2008, which is after the circulation date of this report. Any revision to the GLA figures and impact on the council tax will provided to Cabinet as soon as available.

9.63 A summary of the provisional levy is set out below;-

32

GLA Functions 2008/09

Draft 2007/08 Increase

£ £ % Metropolitan Police Authority 227.34 223.60 1.67 London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority

49.60 47.12 5.26

Transport for London 4.10 4.13 (0.73) Greater London Authority 10.21 10.00 2.10 London Development Agency 0.00 0.00 - Olympic Surcharge 20.00 20.00 - Surplus on Borough Collection Funds

0.00 (0.97) -

Total GLA Group 311.25 303.88 2.43 9.64 The Mayor has extended the Olympic Surcharge by a year. This along with the announcement of a £2bn payoff for Metronet by the Government highlights the considerable risks faced by London in respect of the GLA’s activities. Questions have been asked of how the LDA will deal with the Olympic legacy in terms of profits from the land sales after 2012 and the on-going cost of the remaining operational Olympic facilities.

Collection Fund 9.65 On the statutory date (15 January 2008) the Chief Finance Officer forecast the collection of previous years’ council tax, as at 31 March 2008. This calculation identified a surplus on the Collection Fund of £0.365m, which has been allocated between Barnet and the GLA – Barnet’s share being £250,790. The surplus results from more new properties being completed than forecast when setting the 2007/08 tax base together with improvements in collection following investment in new staff and systems. The estimated collection rate for 2008/09 is 98.5%.

Council Taxbase 9.66 There are two measures of the taxable capacity of the Authority. The first is the Inland Revenue Valuation Office list, which is adjusted for discounts and exemptions on the council tax system and is used by Government in Formula Grant calculations. The second is used for tax setting purposes and is a calculation made by the Chief Finance Officer, representing the estimated taxable capacity for the year ahead and incorporating the estimated collection rate.

33

9.67 Under delegated powers, the Chief Finance Officer has determined the 2008/09 taxbase to be £135,944 (Band D Equivalents) – the calculation is set out below:-

Band D Equivalent Council Taxbase

2007/08 2008/09 Number of properties 157,471 158,390

Estimated discounts (13,663) (13,806)

Estimated other changes (6,688) (6,852)

Total Relevant Amounts 137,120 137,732 Estimated non-collection (1.5%) (2,058) (2,066)

Contribution on lieu of MoD 283 278

Council Taxbase 135,345 135,944 Council Tax 9.68 The calculation of the council tax for Barnet is set out below:-

BUDGET 2007/08 2008/09 £ £

BUDGET REQUIREMENT 222,518,700 237,501,890 Formula Grant (11,823,643) (11,004,762)

Business Rate Income (70,454,050) (79,052,582)

Collection Fund Transfers 1,361,970 (250,800)

DEMAND ON COLLECTION FUND 141,602,977 147,193,746 Council Taxbase 135,345 135,944

BASIC AMOUNT OF TAX 1,046.24 1,082.75 9.69 The provisional GLA precept is £42,312,570, making the total estimated demand

on the Collection Fund £189,506,316. 9.70 The Council is required to set levels of council tax for each category of dwelling. As there are no special items within Barnet's or the GLA’s budgets affecting parts of the borough, there are only eight amounts of tax to set, as set out below:-

34

Council Tax Band

Barnet GLA Aggregate

£ £ £ A 721.83 207.50 929.33

B 842.14 242.08 1,084.22

C 962.44 276.67 1,239.11

D 1,082.75 311.25 1,394.00

E 1,323.36 380.42 1,703.78

F 1,563.97 449.58 2,013.55

G 1,804.58 518.75 2,323.33

H 2,165.50 622.50 2,788.00 9.71 Individual Council Tax bills will reflect occupancy status with discounts for low occupancy (one or no adults) and exemptions for specific circumstances. In addition, some residents will be eligible for Council Tax Benefit. In 2007/08, approximately 19% of council tax payers claimed a full or partial council tax rebate.

Medium Term Financial Strategy & Financial Forward Plan 9.72 The Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) was approved by Cabinet Resources Committee in March 2007 and is presented in Appendix A. It provides a framework for future years’ financial plans. 9.73 Forward financial planning is critical to support council performance and achieve its priorities. It is also a requirement under the Prudential Framework that decisions on the budget must be taken in the context of the Forward Plan, with particular attention being paid to the affordability of prudential borrowing over a period of at least 3 years. 9.74 An update on the Financial Forward Plan is attached at Appendix D. Some key assumptions have had to be made in constructing this forward plan (e.g. estimated pay awards, inflation, levies, pension contributions, prudential borrowing, investment income), along with targets for efficiency savings and budget reductions. Quite small changes in these variables can have a significant impact on the final council tax figures. 9.75 The Settlement announced provisional grant figures for 2009/10 and 2010/11. These are incorporated into the Financial Forward Plan.

35

9.76 Members need to be fully aware of the “gearing” problem that establishment of the Dedicated Schools Grant has created. With the council’s net budget in the order of £238m and Government grant in the order of £90m, there is already an in-built requirement to achieve considerable efficiency savings and budget reductions to cope with this funding ratio between council tax and grant of 1.65 : 1. Then on top of that, there is the likelihood of seeing the later years % grant increases of 2.7% and 3.0% being outstripped by % inflation increases on the £238m – and all this before any increased demand for local services, particularly those resulting from an increasing population. 9.77 This fundamental gearing problem simply reinforces the requirement to maintain balances throughout 2008/09, and where possible to increase them.

PART 2 HOUSING REVENUE ACCOUNT

9.78 The Housing Revenue Account (HRA) is a statutory ring-fenced account covering all revenue expenditure and income relating to the housing stock. The Council is required to construct a budget to ensure that the account for the year does not show a debit balance. 2008/09 will be the fourth year of management of the housing stock by Barnet Homes, and the summary HRA is shown in Appendix C.

Rent Restructuring 9.79 The Government introduced rent restructuring and convergence for local authority and registered social landlords (RSLs) over a 10-year period starting April 2002. All rents would be calculated on the same basis, with 70% based on average earnings for the region (adjusted for numbers of bedrooms) and 30% based on the valuation as at January 1999. 9.80 The Government consulted during the summer of 2005 on a 3-year review of rent restructuring, and implemented its proposals in 2006/07. These involved a re- calculation of base formula rents in line with those used for housing association properties, together with higher weightings for properties with three or more bedrooms. 9.81 Rents move towards a target figure for each property. This year, the Government has extended the deadline for convergence to 2016/17 for the purposes of calculating the guideline and formula rents. It has also withdrawn the Rental Constraint Allowance which compensated local authorities in part in the last two

36

years for its imposed cap on rent increases, and reintroduced its caps and limits adjustment. However this is not paid until the following year which therefore increases the in-year deficit on the account. It is proposed therefore that rents be increased by an overall average of 6.3%, in line with the guideline rent. The increase to any individual property is limited to inflation (deemed to be 3.9%) plus 0.5% plus £2 per week (on a 52 week basis).

Housing Subsidy 9.82 The trend of shifting resources away from London has been continued in the

2008/09 subsidy settlement. Barnet is at or above target levels for management and maintenance allowances and these have been cash-limited at 2007/8 levels, with no protection for inflation. This effectively reduces resources available to the HRA by around £600,000.

9.83 There is an additional £4 per dwelling added to the management allowance for the production of energy performance certificates, which will be required for each new letting from October 2008. The management allowance has been set at £644.68 while the maintenance allowance remains at £1,155.47 per dwelling. The guideline rent increase reflects the restructuring referred to above. 9.84 The Major Repairs Allowance is also paid as part of housing subsidy. Barnet’s allocation has reduced by £38,000 from 2007/8 and has not kept pace with inflation, thereby reducing the resources available to fund the capital programme.

Service Charges 9.85 Service charges for tenants were introduced in 2003/04 for specific services (mainly caretaking), and it is proposed that these be increased in line with the overall rent increase cap of 4.4%. Charges for these services will not generally recover the full cost of their provision.

HRA Summary & Working Balance 9.86 Total expenditure for 2008/09 is estimated at £53.909m, including payment of £10.872m to the Government in respect of housing subsidy. The proposed average rent increase of 6.3% and the increase in tenant service charges is estimated to raise £2.392m, before the effect of sales is taken into account. 9.87 Energy prices continue to be volatile with significant increases recently announced

37

by several suppliers. It is necessary to pass these charges on in respect of space and water heating. Barnet Homes is presently undertaking a review of its supply arrangements in order to obtain the best value for money. It is proposed to increase these charges by 10% at this stage, but it may be necessary to review this further during the year. 9.88 It is proposed that rents for the Council’s shared ownership schemes and hostels be increased in accordance with the general rent increase. It is also recommended that rents on garages be increased by 10%. 9.89 The HRA working balance stood at £4.835m on 31 March 2007, and it is anticipated that the HRA will make a small contribution £0.060m to balances in 2007/08. The forward plan shows a balanced account in 2008/09, leaving forecast balances of £4.895m at 31 March 2009.

HRA Minimum Revenue Provision (MRP) 9.90 Unlike the General Fund, there is no requirement for the HRA to be charged with the MRP or its depreciation equivalent. The Government’s removal of this legal requirement, combined with subsidy changes results in there being no equivalent reduction in debt unless a voluntary charge is made – without subsidy, which has to found from within HRA resources. Barnet’s current policy is to not make a charge which is robust from a legal perspective. The option of making a charge remains a consideration for the council should it prove beneficial to do so.

PART 3 CAPITAL PROGRAMME

Introduction 9.91 The capital programme sets out the plans for investment in buildings, roads, equipment, other assets and capital grants over 2007/08 to 2010/11 and beyond. 9.92 The recommended capital programme is set out later in the report. Decisions on the level of capital expenditure depend on the availability of various sources of funding. This includes capital grants, capital receipts, developer contributions and borrowing. 9.93 Government supports investment in two ways. Capital grants that are generally ring fenced to specific programmes (such as schools) or projects and is real funding to the council. This is in contrast to notional capital allocations that feed into either revenue Formula Grant or Housing Subsidy (referred to as supported borrowing).

38

With below inflation revenue grant increases the reality is that the cost of borrowing is not funded by Government grant. 9.94 As such, the council can no longer base capital investment decisions on notional Government figures and must determine the level of investment in accordance with the self-regulatory Prudential Framework. Local authorities may determine the amount of capital investment they can fund by ‘unsupported’ prudential borrowing based on affordability, prudence, sustainability and good practice. Recently, the council has used prudential borrowing to modernise and maintain it’s infrastructure. This is not sustainable at previous levels.

Capital Programme 9.95 New capital proposals are now supported by a full business case, which detail the

contribution schemes will make to achieve the Council's priorities, all the available options for implementing the project and financial implications of each. The relative merits of each proposal are assessed within the context of available capital resources to produce a prioritised capital programme.

9.96 The programme incorporates revisions approved through budget monitoring including changes being reported to Cabinet Resources Committee on 25 February. In addition, the following essential non-school capital works are recommended for addition to the existing programme.

New Scheme 2008/09

£ Friary House : Voluntary Sector Resource

Centre 700,000

Land & Assets Programme - GIS 94,000

Land & Assets Programme - Plantech 50,000

Housing Management System 334,000 SWIFT Development 580,000 HRA - extension / de-conversion properties 250,000

2,008,000 9.97 Provision for revenue costs (running costs and borrowing) are included in the revenue budget. Updated reports will be submitted to Members to confirm final costs.

39

9.98 For the first time an attempt has been made to reflect slippage in the current year within the budget for the coming year, but this has proved to be a more complicated administrative task than originally envisaged. It has therefore been decided to include all information on the capital programme and its funding within Appendix B, which will be circulated separately.

9.99 The capital programme is now extremely reliant on external grants and prudential borrowing to fund capital borrowing. The only area of the capital programme that capital receipts are expected to fund a significant part is PSCIP. 9.100 The Chief Finance Officer has already referred to a number of capital projects that

present a risk to the Council along with the prudent assumptions made on capital receipts that will be available to support the programme. The planned funding of the capital programme is included in Appendix B. General Fund borrowing is used to fund on average, over 30% of the annual programme. The historical level of annual borrowing is not sustainable and Cabinet may need to consider using significant capital receipts generated in future years to repay borrowing rather than fund further expansion of the capital programme.

9.101 The programme has been subject to considerable slippage in previous years with

some £15m of 2006/07 capital budget now included in the 2007/08 programme. The latest capital monitor to Cabinet Resources Committee includes a request to reschedule £17.4m of capital expenditure across a range of projects. This is a significant risk, especially where the projects are funded by time-limited capital grants or the investment is budgeted to generate revenue savings. The updated capital programme attempts to reflect this slippage carried forward from 2007/08, but clearly until the accounts are closed the figures for each project are only provisional. This will require a review of project budgets during the first cycle of budget monitoring of 2008/09 and a re-statement of budgets in 2008/09 in the first budget monitor reported to Cabinet Resources Committee.

9.102 The HRA programme for the improvement of homes is managed by Barnet Homes. It has entered into partnering agreements with the major contractors who will deliver the bulk of the programme until 2010/11. Funding is via the ALMO Decent Homes borrowing, other supported borrowing, the Major Repairs Allowance, capital receipts and contributions from leaseholders. Decent Homes borrowing approvals have now been confirmed to 2009/10 and due to the excellent performance by Barnet Homes in the delivery of the programme, some £5m has been brought forward from the 2009/10 allocation into 2007/8. This has enabled some work to be brought forward and will enable work with two of their partners to be completed

40

ahead of schedule by the end of 2009/10. 9.103 The General Fund Housing programme totals £8m in 2008/09. It includes expenditure supporting housing association projects.

PART 4 PRUDENTIAL CODE & BORROWING LIMITS

9.104 The Prudential Framework gives freedom to local authorities to invest as long as their capital plans are affordable, prudent and sustainable. The CIPFA Prudential Code sets out the indicators that local authorities must use and the factors that they must take into account to show that they have fulfilled these objectives. 9.105 The principal constraint on capital investment will be the financial impact on the council tax and rent levels of the housing revenue account, which will be reflected in the indicators of affordability. It will be for the Council to decide on an appropriate level of borrowing in relation to its net capital financing costs and the level of council tax and housing rents. 9.106 For 2008/09, Government has provided local authorities with a mix of revenue support for capital financing costs based on notional capital allocations and capital grants via the single capital pot, but it has still to decide whether to continue with the current arrangements or change the balance between revenue support for borrowing and capital grants as part of the CSR. The Council has lobbied for capital support to be provided as capital grants because recent floor settlements result in there being no grant increase for new capital financing costs. 9.107 The financial indicators under the Prudential Code and the 2007/08 Treasury Management Strategy & Annual Plan requiring Council approval are set out in Appendix C along with full details of their calculation and purpose. 10. LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS 10.1 None Legal: MAM CFO: CM

41

Appendix A Medium Term Financial Strategy Introduction & Context The Council is producing its first Medium Term Financial Strategy to formalise its financial aims and intentions and to invite comment from residents, local businesses, partners and other stakeholders as to whether these aims and intentions are consistent with their needs. It is also an important step in making the transition from producing single year budgets to having robust financial forward plans that reflect the position of the Council in the medium term. The Council Constitution sets out how decisions are made including setting the Council budget. Whilst the Council budget sets out what those decisions are, the Medium Term Financial Strategy determines the underlying principles behind them and is key in driving the delivery of the Corporate Plan. The Financial Forward Plan sits beneath the Medium Term Financial Strategy indicating future years’ budgets and council tax levels. Those indications are based on the current available information and provides the starting point for the following year’s budget. Background As a result of strong budgeting decisions and robust monitoring, the Council’s general fund balances have risen steadily over the last three years. Balances have reached the minimum level of £10m recommended by both the Chief Finance Officer and the Council’s external auditor. This strengthened financial standing was enhanced by decisions made during the annual budget setting process where over £59m was removed from the base budget over a period of five years (2003/04 to 2007/08). This was achieved through making substantial efficiency savings to meet central government targets a year early and better managing growth in prioritised services through effective resource allocation by shifting resources away from non-priority areas. These savings took place in the context of diminishing grant allocation from central government including in 2003/04 not receiving sufficient grant to meet the required level that had to be passported to schools. The improving financial management of the authority has been recognised by the external auditor and has recently seen the Comprehensive Performance Assessment Use of Resources judgement increase to a ‘3’. Guiding Principles The Council faces the prospect of very low grant settlements in the coming years through the Government’s Spending Review, but at the same time will have to accommodate increasing levels of demand, particularly from demand led service areas over which the Council has no or limited control such as adults and children’s services.

5

Despite these challenges, the Council is committed to keeping annual increases in council tax as low as possible and adheres to a set of key principles in the decision making process to support this . These principles are set out below:- Medium Term Financial Health • to maintain unearmarked General Fund balances at at least the minimum level

recommended by the Chief Finance Officer (currently £10m) and supported by a financial risk assessment;

• to have a strong Treasury Management Strategy that maximises the Council’s

cashflow and investments; • to continue to deliver efficiency savings of at least 3% every year and provide

services that represent value for money • to continually review the use of council assets so as to reduce the cost of

accommodation year on year and to obtain best consideration for any surplus assets to maximise funds for capital investment and/or the repayment of capital debt;

Integrating Financial Planning with Service Planning • to continually review services being delivered to residents and local businesses and

re-direct resources from lower to higher priority services (in support of the Corporate Plan);

• whilst recognising the importance of maintaining investment in the Council’s

infrastructure, having adequately resourced corporate support services and ensuring all services are delivering value for money;

• in reviewing services, to prioritise service outcomes but also focus on service delivery

mechanisms, taking into account the short and long term risks associated with alternative methods of delivering services;

• to require Cabinet Members and Directors to undertake risk based financial forward

planning for their portfolios and services thereby improving the quality of decision making and reducing the risk from changes made to the annual council budget;

• to make use of fees and charges to supplement council tax and other sources of

income, and to set these at a level that at least recovers all the costs of service delivery and income collection and recovery, other than in areas where there is a clear policy objective in support of the Corporate Plan;

• to maximise external funding in support of the Corporate Plan, whilst taking into

account the full year effects on future years’ budgets and levels of council tax resulting from grants that are time limited;

• to undertake capital borrowing in accordance with the Prudential Framework;

Budgetary Control • to have adequate budget and project monitoring arrangements in place;

6

• to take decisions to re-direct resources in support of the Corporate Plan at any time during the financial year, rather than wait for the start of the next financial year;

• to maximise collection and recovery of income due to the Council; • to establish earmarked reserves whenever possible during each financial year to

meet future policy objectives, reduce the impact on future years’ budgets and levels of council tax increases, and adequately provide for anticipated liabilities in the future;

Sound governance • to comply with all EU and national procurement and contracting regulations, whilst

also seeking to be innovative to improve service delivery and value for money; • to recognise the role that partnerships can have in delivering services, but to enter

these only when satisfactory arrangements for financial control, risk management and performance monitoring are in place.

• to have in place adequate anti-fraud and corruption arrangements, and to take robust

action if and when fraud and corruption is identified; Deliverables Once adopted and implemented, the Medium Term Financial Strategy will support the Council in its move toward:-

• achieving the vision of “a smaller entity with a smaller, but more efficient corporate support function and a greater concentration of resources on outcomes” and use Shared Services as a lever to identify and obtain increased efficiencies across the Council;

• delivering high quality services whilst maintaining Council Tax increases below the

rate of inflation;

• effectively link policy and service development and performance management with financial planning, aligning resources with corporate priorities and away from non-priority areas

• fully integrated capital and revenue financial planning;

• managing better the financial implications of unforeseen events, due to the

maintenance of balances at a sensible level;

• achieving a level ‘4’ in the Comprehensive Performance Assessment Use of Resources judgement;

• having clear individual medium term financial strategies for each service area which

details the delivery of the Key Priority Plans;

• having robust arrangements for the monitoring of budgets and resources throughout the year;

7

Financial Risk Management The principal mechanism by which the Council will manage financial risks is through the establishment and maintenance of adequate reserves, balances and provisions. Members will be informed about financial risks through a variety of mechanisms, including:-

• the annual financial risks statement by the Chief Finance Officer that accompanies the annual budget report;

• Key Priority Plans, which support the delivery of corporate priorities; • regular budget monitoring reports and the annual financial outturn report to Cabinet

Resources Committee; • the annual Statement on Internal Control (SIC)1, which is considered by the Audit

Committee and signed off by the Leader and Chief Executive, and is the product of a corporate risk management framework incorporating service mini-SICs and Internal Control Checklists;

• the annual Use of Resources Assessment. Links to Other Council Strategies The Medium Term Financial Strategy supports and is supported by the following strategies and plans:-

o Sustainable Community Strategy o Corporate Plan o Organisational Strategy o Capital, Assets & Property Strategy o Treasury Management Strategy o Debt Management Strategy o Procurement Strategy o Risk Management Strategy

1 The Statement on Internal Control will be replaced by the Statement on Corporate Governance at the

end of 2007/08

8

Glossary of terms Audit Committee Independent Committee that looks at the effectiveness of risk management and the control environment, and how this can be affected by the authority’s financial and non-financial performance Balances The outstanding amount of money owed (or due) at a given date (usually the end of a financial period) after all payments and withdrawals have been accounted for. It can be positve (an asset) or negative (a liability). Base Budget Budget at the start of the financial year based on the previous year’s outturn and adjusted for inflation, savings and growth items. Cabinet Resources Committee Cabinet level committee that monitors the use of the auhority’s resources to ensure they support the Council’s priorities as set out in the Corporate Plan. Chief Finance Officer The corporate officer responsible for managing the financial risks of an organisation. Also repsonsible for financial planning and the communication of financial performance and forecasts. Comprehensive Performance Assessment Audit Commission’s assessment of the authority’s performance and the services it provides for local people. This is part of assessing the authority’s statutory obligation to secure continuous improvement known as Best Value. Corporate Plan Review of the performance of the authority over the last twelve months and sets out priorities and targets for service improvement over the next three years. Council Tax The main form of local taxation in England, Scotland and Wales paid by residents to local authorities, the base of which is property value. Only contributes a small proportion (25% on average) of local government revenue. Financial Forward Plan Financial plan covering a period of at least four financial years (including the current one) reported in conjunction with the annual budget and updating throughout the year. Will cover revenue and capital budgets and will highlight how resources are being re-directed to address Corporate Plan priorities.

9

Grant settlement The central government grant funding of local authority revenue expenditure calculated by the total amount that central government assumes an authority should spend (in line with national economic policy) in a given year together with the forecasted collection of Council Tax and other funding sources. Key Priority Plan Identification of service objectives and their contributions to the authority’s key priorities, setting out targets and priorities for the current year and the next three years. Internal Control Checklist Review of the controls within the Council by all managers to ensure compliance with legislative requirements and local procedures. Prudential Framework The framework within which local authorities can be awarded greater freedoms in borrowing dependent upon their financial performance. Reserves Commonly used in the private sector to describe the shareholders equity in an organisation. In the public sector it is a reflection of the level of public funding in a public sector organisation. Shared Services Converged and streamlined operational functions of an organisation ensuring effective and efficient delivery of services. Consisting of the following services: IS Operations; HR Operations; Finance Support; Corporate Services; Revenue Services and the Service Desk. Statement of Internal Control Statutorily required document reviewing the Internal Controls within the authority that support the efficient and effective management of the delivery of services. Required to provide assurance that the Corporate Plan can be delivered. Use of Resources Element of the Comprehensive Performance Assessment that assesses how well the authority manages and uses its financial resources. Focuses on the following five areas: Financial Reporting; Financial Management; Financial Standing, Internal Control and Value for Money.

10

APPENDIX B

REVENUE BUDGET 2008/20092007/2008 2008/2009

Original Current OriginalEstimate Estimate Estimate

£ £ £Council ServicesAdult Social Services 79,279,080 81,482,250 85,553,750 Central Expenses 20,517,090 17,158,140 24,691,020

Chief Executive and Communications & Consultation and Policy & Partnerships 2,552,180 2,548,140 2,595,480

Children's Service (net of Dedicated Schools Grant) 56,341,740 56,751,400 57,418,720

Corporate Governance 8,429,230 8,522,320 8,401,940

Environment & Transport 27,558,740 27,306,830 28,207,590

Highways - Special Parking Account (4,741,000) (4,741,000) (4,841,000)

Housing 2,108,580 2,068,170 1,643,170

Planning and Environmental Protection 948,310 981,100 1,643,620

Resources 29,134,900 30,239,920 31,791,850

Strategic Development 389,850 391,430 395,750

BUDGET REQUIREMENT 222,518,700 222,708,700 237,501,890

REVENUE BUDGET 2008/20092007/2008 2008/2009

Original Current OriginalEstimate Estimate Estimate

£ £ £Total Service Expenditure 222,518,700 222,708,700 237,501,890

Contribution to / (from) Balances 0 (190,000) 0

BUDGET REQUIREMENT 222,518,700 222,518,700 237,501,890

Revenue Support Grant (11,823,643) (11,823,643) (11,004,762)

Business Rates (70,454,050) (70,454,050) (79,052,582)

Collection Fund Adjustments 1,361,970 1,361,970 (250,800)

BARNET'S DEMAND ON THE COLLECTION FUND 141,602,977 141,602,977 147,193,746

Greater London Authority - Precept 41,128,639 41,128,639 42,312,570

INCOME FROM COUNCIL TAX 182,731,616 182,731,616 189,506,316

Components of the Council Tax (Band D) 2007/2008 2008/2009 Increase

£ £

Metropolitan Police 223.60 227.34 1.67%

London Fire & Emergency Planning Authority 47.12 49.60 5.26%Mayor, Administration, Transport for London, Olympic Games and Boroughs' Collection Fund balances. 33.16 34.31 3.47%

Greater London Authority 303.88 311.25 2.43%

London Borough of Barnet 1,046.24 1,082.75 3.49%

Total 1,350.12 1,394.00 3.25%

REVENUE BUDGET 2008/2009COUNCIL TAX SUMMARY

Council Tax Bands (based on property values @ 1 April 1991) 2007/2008 2008/2009 Tax Yield

£ £ £[Up to £40,000] Band A 900.08 929.33 1,301,685 [Over £40,000 & up to £52,000] Band B 1,050.09 1,084.22 7,638,026 [Over £52,000 & up to £68,000] Band C 1,200.11 1,239.11 26,486,577 [Over £68,000 & up to £88,000] Band D 1,350.12 1,394.00 33,872,031 [Over £88,000 & up to £120,000] Band E 1,650.15 1,703.78 44,269,852 [Over £120,000 & up to £160,000] Band F 1,950.18 2,013.55 33,956,880 [Over £160,000 & up to £320,000] Band G 2,250.20 2,323.33 32,636,014 [Over £320,000] Band H 2,700.24 2,788.00 9,345,251

189,506,316

COUNCIL TAXBASECouncil Taxbase 2007/2008 2008/2009

Band D Equivalents

Band D Equivalents Income

Total properties (per Valuation List) 157,471 158,390 220,795,660 Exemptions (4,544) (4,329) (6,034,626)Disabled reductions (122) (123) (171,462)Discounts (10%, 25% & 50%) (13,663) (13,806) (19,245,564)Adjustments (2,022) (2,400) (3,345,220)Aggregate Relevant Amounts 137,120 137,732 191,998,788 Non-Collection (1.5% both years) (2,058) (2,066) (2,880,004)Contributions in lieu from MoD 283 278 387,532

135,345 135,944 189,506,316

Adult Social Services2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13

£ £ £ £ £Base Budget 79,279,080 85,553,750 86,355,090 87,667,130 89,896,090Virements 2,171,200Pay Awards 478,620 490,590 500,400 510,410 520,620Standard Inflation - Expenditure 2,119,980 2,172,980 2,227,300 2,282,980 2,340,050 - Income (524,130) (537,230) (550,660) (564,430) (578,540)

83,524,750 87,680,090 88,532,130 89,896,090 92,178,220Efficiencies Contracting efficiencies - Delivering value for money and quality through effective contracting

(1,090,000) (300,000) (1,155,000)

Equipment contract - improved contractual model

(100,000)

Transforming how we work - the role of in-house services. Making in-house services competitive in the market place. Modernising services to deliver self directed care

(176,000)

New Choices Project which reduces the reliance on traditional residential care by the creation of modern service options that are non buildings based

(120,000)

Transforming How We Work - Rolling Out Individualised Budgets. Changing the way social care packages are set up to give greater choice to the individual and reduce care package costs

(725,000) (919,000)

Modernising the way we work - Changing the way we work to give more efficient back office support

(142,000)

Modernising the way we work - Improved social work reviewing function

(41,000)

Modernising the way we work - Improved income collection

(100,000)

(2,318,000) (1,395,000) (1,155,000) 0 0Full Year Effects

0 0 0 0 0PressuresLearning Disability high cost placements 695,000 330,000Transforming how we work - rolling out individualised budgets

100,000

Transforming how we work - the role of in-house services

50,000 (50,000)

Government Grant - Anticipated reduction in specific grants

290,000 290,000 290,000

Adult Social Services Grants now provided through the Revenue Support Grant rather than as separate grants.

4,215,000

5,350,000 570,000 290,000 0 0Service ReductionsDeletion of vacant social worker post (40,000)Transforming how we work - the role of in-house services. Making in-house services competitive in the market place. Modernising services to deliver self directed care. (reduction

(245,000) (500,000)

2008/09 Budget Summary and Forward Plan

Adult Social Services2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13

£ £ £ £ £

2008/09 Budget Summary and Forward Plan

New Choices Project which reduces the reliance on traditional residential care by the creation of modern service options that are non buildings based

(80,000)

Transportation - Reviewing the current arrangements for transport

(60,000)

Cease discretionary training activity (130,000)

Reduce discretionary HIV/AIDS expenditure in line with Grant

(100,000)

Cease funding of discretionary health post (45,000)Reduce discretionary funding for PCT delivered services

(80,000)

More targeted laundry service (15,000)Transforming how we work - rolling out individualised budgets. Changing the way social care packages are set up to give greater choice to the individual and reduce care package costs.

(208,000)

(1,003,000) (500,000) 0 0 0

Budget 85,553,750 86,355,090 87,667,130 89,896,090 92,178,220

Central Expenses2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13

£ £ £ £ £Original Budget 20,517,090 24,691,020 31,334,780 33,699,440 34,406,470Virements (4,038,030)Pay Awards 4,750 4,850 4,950 5,050 5,150Standard Inflation - Expenditure 733,570 751,910 770,710 789,980 809,730 - Income (3,690)

17,213,690 25,447,780 32,110,440 34,494,470 35,221,350Efficiencies Improvement in Interest Earnings (292,870)Review Of Allowances - Strategic HR corporate review of allowances - reduce & rationalise

(200,000)

New Temp Desk contract (30,000)Improvements on Collection Fund - early collection interest benefit

(80,000)

(602,870) 0 0 0 0Full Year EffectsCentral Expenses - LPSA Reward Grant 769,000

Full year running cost of capital projects (61,000) (150,000) (1,000) (1,000)

Stores Closure 22,000730,000 (150,000) (1,000) (1,000) 0

PressuresPFI electricity - Potential additional costs arising from street lighting PFI contract

75,000 75,000

Capital Programme - cost of borrowing 1,597,500 805,000 680,000 683,000Primary School Capital Investment Programme 1,440,000 2,720,000 (770,000) (770,000)

Finalisation of the Capital Programme 100,000Treasury Management - Potential changes in interest charged on market loans

263,000 277,000

Pensions - Additional employer's contributions based on actuarial revaluations

1,000,000 1,040,000 1,080,000

Levies - Increase in North London Waste levy 906,800 620,000 600,000London Pension Fund Authority 149,350Environment Agency 45,850Lee Valley Regional Park (7,300)Staffing Pressures - Provision for Redundancies

1,600,000

Neighbourhood Renewal Fund - Expenditure dropping out

(1,000,000)

Neighbourhood Renewal Fund - Grant dropping out

1,000,000

Central Contingency Transport - Increased Contract Costs from start of new Contract for all Council Vehicles in October 2008

300,000 300,000

Recycling - Increased contract costs from October 2008 due to collection of additional materials

200,000 200,000

General Contingency Provision (including additional provision for pay awards)

0 0 0 0 0

Public Law Family Fees 300,000Base correction addressing service needs across the council

500,000

8,470,200 6,037,000 1,590,000 (87,000) 0

2008/09 Budget Summary and Forward Plan

Central Expenses2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13

£ £ £ £ £

2008/09 Budget Summary and Forward Plan

Service ReductionsConcessionary Fares - Revision relating to new national scheme and government grant

(1,120,000)

Collection Fund & TaxbaseGrant Settlement

(1,120,000) 0 0 0 0

Budget 24,691,020 31,334,780 33,699,440 34,406,470 35,221,350

Note: Current Local Area Agreements provides for up to £9.7m of reward grant. This will be payable in two equal instalments in 20010/11 and 2011/12. 50% of this is Capital and 50% of this is Revenue. The reward is payable to the local Strategic Partnership (LSP) and hence no budgetary provision has been made in the Council's Financial Plans.

Chief Executive and Communications & Consultation and Policy & Partnerships

2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13

£ £ £ £ £Base Budget 2,552,180 2,595,480 2,651,360 2,708,410 2,766,650Virements 15,960Pay Awards 44,350 45,240 46,140 47,060 48,000Standard Inflation - Expenditure 11,340 11,620 11,910 12,210 12,520 - Income (960) (980) (1,000) (1,030) (1,060)

2,622,870 2,651,360 2,708,410 2,766,650 2,826,110Efficiencies Deletion of post over two years (27,390)

(27,390) 0 0 0 0Full Year Effects

0 0 0 0 0Pressures

0 0 0 0 0Service Reductions

0 0 0 0 0

Budget 2,595,480 2,651,360 2,708,410 2,766,650 2,826,110

2008/09 Budget Summary and Forward Plan

Children's Service2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13

£ £ £ £ £Base Budget 241,339,910 57,418,720 58,659,830 59,580,720 60,882,110Dedicated Schools Grant (184,998,170) 0 0 0 0Virements 416,630 0 0 0 0Pay Awards 839,560 248,210 253,170 258,230 263,390Standard Inflation - Expenditure 421,450 431,990 442,790 453,860 - Income (228,960) (6,220) (6,380) (6,540) (6,700)Non-Schools Standard Inflation - Expenditure 703,830 577,670 592,110 606,910 622,080

58,072,800 58,659,830 59,930,720 60,882,110 62,214,740

EfficienciesProposals for generating income from selling services

(50,000)

Libraries Reorganisation 2007/08. Full Year Effect

(13,000)

Reorganise Children's information & advice function.

(186,000)

Reorganise workforce development function and delete underspend.

(200,000)

Reorganise support for libraries. (82,230)Reorganise performance data function. (70,000)Reorganise divisional management. (18,170)Management efficiencies from integration of Youth & Connexions

(300,000)

Connexions (110,000)Further reduction in number of looked after children and consequent reduction in placement costs.

(300,000) (350,000) (350,000)

Reconfigure support to schools to reflect school improvement and greater support from Dedicated Schools Grant

(295,000)

Increase cost of services traded with schools to ensure income covers management costs.

(115,000)

Offset cost of family support against grant. (230,000)

Reprofile provision of services in Children's Centres.

(300,000)

Insurance to be Charged to DSG (191,000)(2,460,400) (350,000) (350,000) 0 0

Full Year EffectsReorganisation of Children & Family Day Centres as Children Centres from 2007.

0 100,000

0 100,000 0 0 0PressuresFurther reduction in number of Looked After Children (Invest to save Mark 2).

250,000 250,000 0 0 0

Children's Service Grant is now provided through the Revenue Support Grant rather than as a separate grant.

1,456,320

Computers for Looked After Children 100,0001,806,320 250,000 0 0 0

Service Reductions0 0 0 0 0

Budget 57,418,720 58,659,830 59,580,720 60,882,110 62,214,740

Note: The following Financial Forward Plan pressures included in March 2007 have been withdrawn:-Children CentresGrowth money for Children Centres. 100

100

2008/09 Budget Summary and Forward Plan

Reorganisation of Children & Family Day Centres as Children Centres.

Corporate Governance2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13

£ £ £ £ £Base Budget 8,429,230 8,401,940 8,626,770 8,857,220 9,093,430Virements 19,650Pay Awards 197,360 202,290 207,350 212,530 217,840Standard Inflation - Expenditure 51,080 52,360 53,670 55,010 56,390 - Income (29,090) (29,820) (30,570) (31,330) (32,110)

8,668,230 8,626,770 8,857,220 9,093,430 9,335,550Efficiencies Efficiencies arising from the amalgamation of trading standards, licensing and other community safety services and re-organisation as one coherent community protection service

(377,250)

Reduction in staffing and general resources - These reductions relate to a reduced staffing level in Divisional Manager level, Solicitor level and at Assistant level, and includes savings from the use of Counsel and general office savings

(107,500)

Reduction in staffing and contract costs relating to a reduced work programme - These reductions relate to the deletion of an Office Manager post and a reduced spend on contracted audit services associated with a reduction in (lower risk) audits carried out in this period.

(31,000)

Reduction resulting from reducing printing costs and better use of internet and intranet. General savings derived from the cancellation of non essential publications and stationery costs.

(26,540)

(542,290) 0 0 0 0Full Year EffectsMembers Allowances Base Adjustment 30,000Base Budget Correction 105,000

135,000 0 0 0 0PressuresCCTV Shift Allowance 100,000Data Analyst - grant loss 41,000

141,000 0 0 0 0Service Reductions

0 0 0 0 0

Budget 8,401,940 8,626,770 8,857,220 9,093,430 9,335,550

2008/09 Budget Summary and Forward Plan

Environment & Transport 2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13

£ £ £ £ £Base Budget 27,558,740 28,207,590 28,765,450 29,386,310 30,020,450Virements 380,710Pay Awards 430,870 439,490 448,280 457,250 466,400Standard Inflation - Expenditure 379,310 388,790 398,510 408,470 418,680 - Income (215,040) (220,420) (225,930) (231,580) (237,370)

28,534,590 28,815,450 29,386,310 30,020,450 30,668,160EfficienciesStaffing efficiencies within Transport, Domestic Refuse and Greenspaces to enable more efficient service delivery.

(115,000)

Highways Strategy - Restructure Strategy Team reallocating responsibilities

(60,000)

Environment and Transport Administration Review - Consolidation of Administration functions currently spread across different sites

(50,000) (50,000)

Additional Income from Trade Waste - via efficient debt recovery and extra sales

(80,000)

(305,000) (50,000) 0 0 0Full Year EffectsNorth London Waste Authority - municipal waste reward scheme.

98,000

98,000 0 0 0 0PressuresDrainage Contract - Increased costs of new Drainage contract which began in 2007/08

150,000

150,000 0 0 0 0Service ReductionsGreenspaces - Full year effect of 2007-08 saving that led to a programme of planned changes to a range of parks and open space, fixed facility and arboricultural maintenance regimes.

(270,000)

(270,000) 0 0 0 0

Budget 28,207,590 28,765,450 29,386,310 30,020,450 30,668,160

2008/09 Budget Summary and Forward Plan

Revenue Budget 2008-2009 Special Parking Account

2007-2008 2007-2008 2008-2009Original Estimate Current Estimate Original Estimate

£ £ £IncomePenalty Charge Notices (5,099,050) (5,099,050) (5,099,050)Permits (1,179,800) (1,179,800) (1,179,800)Pay & Display (3,049,000) (3,049,000) (3,049,000)CCTV Bus lanes (1,664,029) (1,664,029) (1,664,029)

Total Income (10,991,879) (10,991,879) (10,991,879)Operating Expenditure 5,850,879 5,850,879 5,750,879Net Operating Surplus (5,141,000) (5,141,000) (5,241,000)Add Capital Expenditure / Debt Charge 400,000 400,000 400,000Net Expenditure in Year (4,741,000) (4,741,000) (4,841,000)Balance brought forward 0 0Appropriation to General Fund 4,741,000 4,741,000 4,841,000Balance Carried Forward 0 0 0

The SPA is a ringfenced statutory account covering the estimated impact of implementing On-Street Parking and Penalty Charge Notice enforcement, as required by the Road Traffic Act 1991.

Council on 4 November 1997 noted that the provision of further off-street parking places was unnecessary for the time being and that there was no further demand on the ringfenced account in respect of further off-street parking. Accordingly, part of the surplus arising from the SPA is used to substitute for existing relevant works.

The net projected surplus on the SPA is available for implementation of parking schemes and as a general support for public transport improvement projects that fall within the criteria set out in the Highways Act 1980.

Housing General Fund2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13

£ £ £ £ £Base Budget 2,108,580 1,643,170 1,566,030 1,657,790 1,751,480Virements (40,410)Pay Awards 68,880 70,260 71,670 73,100 74,560Standard Inflation - Expenditure 215,050 220,430 225,940 231,590 237,380 - Income (195,930) (200,830) (205,850) (211,000) (216,280)

2,156,170 1,733,030 1,657,790 1,751,480 1,847,140EfficienciesReduction of in the temporary accommodation budget

(200,000)

Reduction in costs as numbers In temporary accommodation fall.

(100,000) (20,000)

Staffing reduction enabled by development of on line application assessment facility.

(75,000)

Restructure of Housing Needs and Resources Service supported by improvements in information technology.

(158,000) (107,000)

Corporate Restructure (90,000)(548,000) (202,000) 0 0 0

Full Year Effects

0 0 0 0 0PressuresRestructure of Housing Needs and Resources Service

35,000 35,000

35,000 35,000 0 0 0Service Reductions

0 0 0 0 0

Budget 1,643,170 1,566,030 1,657,790 1,751,480 1,847,140

2008/09 Budget Summary and Forward Plan

Housing Revenue Account2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12

£ £ £ £Base Budget (net expenditure met by/(contribution to) working balance)

243,350 0 150,770 651,880

Base Budget AdjustmentsPay awards (LBB) 57,910 60,320 61,500 62,710Standard Inflation (LBB) 6,290 6,450 6,610 6,780Increased provision for bad debt 140,000 6,000 5,000 5,000Housing Subsidy 1,552,000 929,000 709,000 740,000Rent, service and heating charge increase (2,392,120) (2,915,000) (2,910,000) (2,895,000)Loss of rent through sales 103,270 107,000 111,000 115,000Additional income from leaseholders (132,600) (5,000) (9,000) (55,000)Capital Financing Costs 1,019,000 700,000 551,000 200,000Management Fee Inflation 611,440 510,000 510,000 510,000Repairs and Maintenance Inflation 266,250 255,000 254,000 246,000Pension Fund Revaluation (Barnet Homes) 328,000 31,000 31,000Depreciation (MRA) (38,000) 206,000 29,000 (100,000)Housing Benefits - reduced HRA cont. (350,000)Barnet Homes Inspection (48,000)

1,123,440 (109,230) (650,890) (1,164,510)PressuresRegeneration/sheltered schemes - rent loss through dwellings vacated

247,850 1,097,000 1,801,000 1,419,000

247,850 1,097,000 1,801,000 1,419,000Efficiencies, Budget ReductionsRestructuring of Housing Services (49,500) (50,000)Regeneration schemes - removal of start-up 0 (211,000) (222,000) (234,000)Regeneration schemes - recovery of costs (571,000) 171,000 400,000Barnet Homes - efficiencies and reduced Repairs and Maintenance (641,250) (297,000) (327,000) (246,000)Management Costs (352,890) (450,000) (500,000) (350,000)

(1,614,640) (837,000) (649,000) (830,000)

2007/8 Budget and Forward Plan - required contribution from/(to) working balance 0 150,770 651,880 76,370

2008/09 Budget Summary and Forward Plan

Planning & Environmental Protection

2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13

£ £ £ £ £Base Budget 948,310 1,643,620 1,953,000 1,854,260 1,967,430Virements 32,790Pay Awards 167,280 170,630 174,040 177,520 181,070Standard Inflation - Expenditure 15,200 15,580 15,970 16,370 16,780 - Income (74,960) (76,830) (78,750) (80,720) (82,740)

1,088,620 1,753,000 2,064,260 1,967,430 2,082,540EfficienciesEnvironmental Health – core services - Efficiencies across Environmental Health Services including more efficient use of existing resources and new areas for increased income.

(58,000)

Building Control - Increase in Income - Increased income from Corporate commitments on Council's own development projects to use in house service, e.g. PSCIP

(30,000)

Reductions in Planning support staff. (45,000)

Hendon Cemetery and Crematorium - Increased income from fees and charges for burials, cremations and related services

(52,000)

(185,000) 0 0 0 0Full Year Effects

0 0 0 0 0PressuresLocal Development Framework - Statutory requirement to produce Local Development Framework to replace UDP.

200,000 (210,000)

Land Charges - Expected loss of income from increased deregulation and HIPS introduction

500,000 200,000

Planning Enforcement Team - Additional Enforcement Post

40,000

740,000 200,000 (210,000) 0 0Service Reductions

0 0 0 0 0

Budget 1,643,620 1,953,000 1,854,260 1,967,430 2,082,540

2008/09 Budget Summary and Forward Plan

Resources 2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13

£ £ £ £ £Base Budget 29,134,900 31,791,850 32,960,712 33,544,070 34,337,450Virements 1,039,920Pay Awards 480,480 490,090 499,890 509,890 520,090Standard Inflation - Expenditure 4,609,180 4,724,410 4,842,520 4,963,580 5,087,670 - Income (4,345,930) (4,454,580) (4,565,940) (4,680,090) (4,797,090)

30,918,550 32,551,770 33,737,182 34,337,450 35,148,120Efficiencies Merge Strategic and Shared Service IT teams - staffing reduction

(60,000)

HR Shared Services E-Recruitment (30,000)

Merge Closing & Compliance and Development Teams.

(55,000)

Delete Head of Corporate Services post (60,000)

Merge Business Intelligence with Business Improvement

(60,000)

Property services/FM restructure - admin efficiencies from merger of the two teams

(30,000)

Shared Service Centre - Swift managed services – potential savings from review

(30,000)

Business Improvement Team Corporate events - move to electronic corporate documents

(30,000)

Mobile phones/XDA charges - improved savings over those in this year's budget on the re-tender of contract.

(30,000)

Reduction of IT contingency provisions (50,000)

Registrars Review of allowances & overtime as part of restructure

(20,000) (20,000)

Property Services - review of advertising hoardings

(90,000)

Graham Park School all weather pitch (35,000)

Revenues Single Person Discount - working to increase tax baseOD & Change - training budget reduction of base requirement from £92,000 to £60,000

(32,000)

Savings From Value For Money Reviews (50,000)Housing Benefit Administration (143,700) 79,942 166,888

(775,700) 29,942 166,888 0 0Full Year EffectsGIS System 19,000Base Budget Correction 204,000Access Point 100,000

304,000 19,000 0 0 0PressuresBailiff's - Fees for Liability Orders 360,000 (360,000)

Office accommodation strategy (incorporating Barnet house rent review)

1,000,000

2008/09 Budget Summary and Forward Plan

Resources 2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13

Council Tax Collection - Additional Staff 345,000

1,345,000 360,000 (360,000) 0 0Service Reductions

0 0 0 0 0

Budget 31,791,850 32,960,712 33,544,070 34,337,450 35,148,120

Strategic Development 2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13

£ £ £ £ £Base Budget 389,850 395,750 400,140 404,590 409,110Virements 1,580Pay Awards 8,030 8,190 8,350 8,520 8,690Standard Inflation - Expenditure 460 470 480 490 500 - Income (4,170) (4,270) (4,380) (4,490) (4,600)

395,750 400,140 404,590 409,110 413,700Efficiencies

0 0 0 0 0Full Year Effects

0 0 0 0 0Pressures

0 0 0 0 0Service Reductions

0 0 0 0 0

Budget 395,750 400,140 404,590 409,110 413,700

2008/09 Budget Summary and Forward Plan

Note: The Council has incurred costs in the preparation of proposals for each of the regeneration projects. These costs may be recovered into the Housing Revenue Account from the development partners when each project has reached a stage specified in each development contract. For Grahame Park it is anticipated that approximately 350,000 will be received, for West Hendon recovery of approximately 600,000 is predicted, although with current delays to the project, this may slip into 2009/10. At Stonegrove, if the project receives a planning consent and the PDA and financial plan are approved by Members, up to £600K will be recovered to the HRA in 2008/9, it is possible that this recvery may slip into 2009/10. Any cost recovery on Dollis Valley will not occur until 2009/10 at the earliest, and it is as likeley to be in 2010/11. Cost recovery on Cricklewood Brent Cross will be into the general fund and is the subject of on-going negotiation.

CAPITAL PROGRAMME: FUNDING APPENDIX B (ii)2007-08 2008-09 2009-10

Grants Capital Receipts

S106 / MRA etc Borrowing Total Grants Capital

ReceiptsS106 / MRA

etc Borrowing Total Grants Capital Receipts

S106 / MRA etc Borrowing Total

£000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000

Adult Social Services 365 40 405

Central Expenses 2,000 2,000 1,500 2,460 3,960 1,500 1,500

Children's Service 6,382 601 2,516 9,499 24,203 1,595 29,543 55,341 18,265 5,900 792 20,072 45,029

Corporate Governance 79 164 243 25 25

Environment & Transport 13,183 1,537 4,099 18,819 4,418 4,523 3,536 12,477 345 1,090 1,435

Housing General Fund 1,714 3,699 2,288 719 8,420 1,497 334 1,853 3,695 7,379 165 1,182 1,347 2,694

Planning & Environmental Protection 8 8

Resources 303 600 1,196 7,980 10,079 400 673 9,998 11,071 1,570 1,570

Strategic Development 374 374

Sub total - General Fund 22,026 6,299 5,622 15,526 49,473 30,143 2,234 8,644 49,606 90,627 18,430 7,082 2,484 24,232 52,228

Housing Revenue Account 564 27,248 11,215 39,027 100 600 5,852 27,291 33,843 1,572 4,354 16,822 22,748

Total - all services 22,026 6,863 32,870 26,741 88,500 30,243 2,834 14,496 76,897 124,470 18,430 8,654 6,838 41,054 74,976

2010-11 Total 2007-11

Grants Capital Receipts

S106 / MRA etc

Borrowing / Repayment Total Grants Capital

ReceiptsS106 / MRA

etcBorrowing / Repayment Total BORROWING SUMMARY FOR APPROVAL

£000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 HRA GF Total

Adult Social Services 365 40 405 £m £m £m

Central Expenses 3,500 3,960 7,460 2008/09 27.29 49.61 76.90

Children's Service 2,311 23,948 (4,395) 21,864 51,161 29,848 2,988 47,736 131,733 2009/10 16.82 24.23 41.05

Corporate Governance 104 164 268 2010/11 3.99 (2.29) 1.71

Environment & Transport 40 40 17,601 6,405 8,765 32,771 2008/11 48.11 71.55 119.66

Housing General Fund 1,347 2,000 3,347 3,376 6,562 7,488 4,414 21,840

Planning & Environmental Protection 8 8

Resources 2,070 2,070 303 1,000 1,869 21,618 24,790

Strategic Development 374 374

Sub total - General Fund 2,311 25,295 2,000 (2,285) 27,321 72,910 40,910 18,750 87,079 219,649

Housing Revenue Account 1,966 5,278 3,994 11,238 100 4,702 42,732 59,322 106,856

Total - all services 2,311 27,261 7,278 1,709 38,559 73,010 45,612 61,482 146,401 326,505

Note : 2010-11 Children's Service borrowing shows repayment of loans by capital receipts from the sale of redundant schools not needed to fund the new PSCIP capital expenditure in year.

Recommendation to council 1.1:-

SERVICE

The council agrees to new prudential borrowing for 2008/09 to 2010/11 of £119.66m

SERVICE

1

APPENDIX B (II)

£000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000

Adult Social Services 405 405 365 40 405 405

Central Expenses 1,144 2,000 3,960 1,500 8,604 3,500 3,960 7,460 1,144 8,604

Children's Service 22,703 9,499 55,341 45,029 21,864 38,019 192,455 53,664 9,338 66,051 40,699 169,752 22,703 192,455

Corporate Governance 498 243 25 766 104 164 268 498 766

Environment & Transport 17,288 18,819 12,477 1,435 40 50,059 17,365 6,640 8,766 32,771 17,288 50,059

Housing General Fund 15,849 8,420 7,379 2,694 3,347 37,689 3,376 7,488 6,562 4,414 21,840 15,849 37,689

Planning & Environmental Protection 178 8 186 8 8 178 186

Resources 23,018 10,079 11,071 1,570 2,070 70 47,878 303 1,869 1,000 21,688 24,860 23,018 47,878

Strategic Development 222 374 596 374 374 222 596

Sub total - General Fund 80,900 49,473 90,627 52,228 27,321 38,089 338,638 75,177 25,335 77,113 80,113 257,738 80,900 338,638

Housing Revenue Account 67,044 39,027 33,843 22,748 11,238 173,900 100 31,551 11,181 4,702 59,322 106,856 67,044 173,900

Total - all services 147,944 88,500 124,470 74,976 38,559 38,089 512,538 75,277 31,551 36,516 81,815 139,435 364,594 147,944 512,538

2010-11 Borrowing TotalTotal Grants Other (incl. S106)MRA Prior

years2007/08-2010/11

CAPITAL PROGRAMME 2007-08 TO 2010-11 CAPITAL FUNDING

SERVICE PRIOR YEARS 2008-09 2009-10 Future

yearsCapital

Receipts2007-08

2

£000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000

AS04 Improving the Care Environments for Older People 365 365 365 365 365

AS99 Outstanding commitments on completed schemes 40 40 40 40 40

405 405 365 40 405 0 405

Total2007/08-2010/11Total Grants Other (incl.

S106)

Prior years

funding2010-11 Capital

Receipts BorrowingFuture years2007-08

CAPITAL PROGRAMME 2007-08 TO 2010-11 CAPITAL FUNDING

Adult Social Services PRIOR YEARS 2008-09 2009-10

3

£000 Revised £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000

CE01 Capitalised Redundancies 1,144 2,000 1,500 1,500 6,144 3,500 1,500 5,000 1,144 6,144

CE02 Capital Contingency 2,460 2,460 2,460 2,460 2,460

1,144 2,000 3,960 1,500 8,604 3,500 3,960 7,460 1,144 8,604

Prior years

fundingTotal2010-11 Capital

Receipts Borrowing 2007/08-2010/11Total Grants Other (incl.

S106)Future years2007-08

CAPITAL PROGRAMME 2007-08 TO 2010-11 CAPITAL FUNDING

Central Expenses PRIOR YEARS 2008-09 2009-10

4

£000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000

CF01 Children's Personal Social Services Capital Allocation (DH)

2006-07 - Looked After Children - IT 66 41 107 41 41 66 107

CF03 Integrated Children's Services Capital Grant (DH)

2005-06 33 33 33 33

2006-07 127 127 127 127 0 1272007-08 (provisional grant figure -subject to change) 155 155 155 155 0 155

CF99 Outstanding commitments on completed schemes 4 4 4 4 0 4

ED01 School Access Initiatives 615 615 615 615

2003-04 Programme 264 264 264 264

2004-05 Programme 130 130 130 130

2005-06 Programme 150 24 174 24 24 150 174

2006-07 Programme 180 36 216 216 216 0 216

2007-08 Programme 196 20 216 216 216 0 216

ED05 LEA Liability at VA Schools re major capital schemes (Bishop Douglas) 101 9 110 9 9 101 110

ED09 The Compton School - expansion

Multi Use Games Area 316 316 316 316

Main scheme 5,130 0 5,130 5,130 5,130

2009-102007-08 2008-09 2007/08-2010/11Total Grants Other (incl.

S106)Capital

Receipts BorrowingFuture years2010-11

Prior years

fundingTotal

CAPITAL PROGRAMME 2007-08 TO 2010-11 CAPITAL FUNDING

Children's Service PRIOR YEARS

5

£000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000

2009-102007-08 2008-09 2007/08-2010/11Total Grants Other (incl.

S106)Capital

Receipts BorrowingFuture years2010-11

Prior years

fundingTotal

CAPITAL PROGRAMME 2007-08 TO 2010-11 CAPITAL FUNDING

Children's Service PRIOR YEARS

ED10 Frith Manor 7,168 21 7,189 21 21 7,168 7,189

Rebuild and redevelopment after fire

ED12 Modernisation - all schools need

2004-05 1,843 306 2,149 306 306 1,843 2,149

Building Condition & other schemes

2005-06 820 35 175 1,030 210 210 820 1,030

Building Condition schemes (AMP)

ED13 Modernisation - primary school need

2005-06 175 0 67 242 67 67 175 242

2006-07 1,810 456 2,266 237 219 456 1,810 2,266

2007-08 887 650 1,537 1,537 1,537 0 1,537

Modernisation Primary and Secondary Future years allocations 3,000 1,488 1,805 6,293 1,505 4,788 6,293 0 6,293

Basic Need 500 1,044 1,544 1,544 1,544 0 1,544

Schools Access Initiatives 300 300 600 600 600 0 600

ED15 Modernisation - secondary 226 929 2,932 4,087 929 300 2,632 3,861 226 4,087

6

£000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000

2009-102007-08 2008-09 2007/08-2010/11Total Grants Other (incl.

S106)Capital

Receipts BorrowingFuture years2010-11

Prior years

fundingTotal

CAPITAL PROGRAMME 2007-08 TO 2010-11 CAPITAL FUNDING

Children's Service PRIOR YEARS

ED16 Surestart -Phase 2 748 2,056 2,804 2,804 2,804 0 2,804Surestart - Phase 3 696 1,493 806 2,995 2,995 2,995 0 2,995

ED17 Big Lottery Fund Schemes

Bell Lane - Sports Hall 773 42 815 42 42 773 815Moss Hall Junior School - Changing room refurbishment 333 (0) 333 333 333

Oak Lodge School - Multi Use Games Area 14 226 240 226 226 14 240

Borough Playground scheme 7 sites - line markings 10 141 151 141 141 10 151

Whitings Hill Primary - Multi Use Games Area 11 141 152 141 141 11 152

0 0

ED19 Underhill Infants - Childrens Centre 49 200 1,781 2,030 1,658 323 1,981 49 2,030

0 0

ED20 Dollis Infants - reprovisioning and expansion of Nursery 52 142 194 142 142 52 194

ED21 Hyde School Rebuild & Childrens Centre

Stage 1 - Childrens Centre 337 (0) 1,113 1,450 1,113 1,113 337 1,450

Stage 2 - redevelopment of school 450 5,600 6,050 1,921 4,129 6,050 0 6,050

Contingency 432 400 18 850 432 418 850 0 850

ED22 Parkfield School

Stage 1 - Childrens Centre 1,370 85 1,455 85 85 1,370 1,455

Stage 2 - redevelopment of school 353 400 5,687 400 6,840 550 5,936 6,486 353 6,8397

£000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000

2009-102007-08 2008-09 2007/08-2010/11Total Grants Other (incl.

S106)Capital

Receipts BorrowingFuture years2010-11

Prior years

fundingTotal

CAPITAL PROGRAMME 2007-08 TO 2010-11 CAPITAL FUNDING

Children's Service PRIOR YEARS

ED23 Primary Schools Capital Investment Programme (PSCIP)Wave 1 400 10,082 20,684 19,235 38,019 88,420 624 7,645 66,051 14,100 88,420 0 88,420

ED25 East Barnet - Rebuild 402 1,662 12,836 19,220 34,120 31,220 792 1,706 33,718 402 34,120

ED26 Youth Capital funding 104 242 346 242 242 104 346

ED27 DfES Primary Pathfinder 6,500 6,500 6,500 6,500 0 6,500

ED28 Libraries Strategy 362 878 1,240 240 1,000 1,240 0 1,240

ED56 Health & Safety Works 632 632 632 632 0 632

ED99 Outstanding Commitments on completed schemes 48 257 305 257 257 48 305

22,703 9,499 55,341 45,029 21,864 38,019 192,455 53,664 9,338 66,051 40,699 169,752 22,703 192,455

SCHEMES IMPLEMENTED BY SCHOOLS

New Deals for Schools Devolved Formula 6,713 3,872 1,239 2,462 3,685 3,669 21,640 14,927 14,927 6,713 21,640

Specialist Schools (capital grant) 300 100 400 100 100 300 400

29,716 13,471 56,580 47,491 25,549 41,688 214,495 68,691 9,338 66,051 40,699 184,779 29,716 214,495

8

£000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000

LP03 Legal case management system 166 4 170 4 4 166 170

LP04 Emergency Response Command Centre 4 160 164 160 160 4 164

SD05 Building Safer Communities 328 79 25 432 104 104 328 432

498 243 25 766 104 164 268 498 766

Borrowing 2007/08-2010/11Total Grants Other (incl.

S106)2009-10 2010-112007-08 Capital Receipts

Future years

Prior years

fundingTotal

CAPITAL PROGRAMME 2007-08 TO 2010-11 CAPITAL FUNDING

Corporate Governance PRIOR YEARS 2008-09

9

£000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000

EN02 Waste recycling schemes 978 551 1,529 551 551 978 1,529

Green Bins

Paper and can recycling banks

Waste Performance Efficiency Grant

EN03 Parks InfrastructureOld Courthouse Recreation Ground catering facilities 44 44 44 44

Barnet element of larger scheme

Security of park boundaries 23 7 30 7 7 23 30

EN08 Watling Park (S106) 44 44 44 44

CCTV 73 73 73 73

Entrance gates 31 31 15 16 31 0 31

EN10 Glebelands Open Space - Sports Pitches 7 68 75 68 68 7 75

EN11 Environmental Officer - capitalisation of salary 80 40 40 40 40 240 160 160 80 240

EN12 Closed Circuit Television in Town Centres

Radio Communications System 38 62 100 62 62 38 100

2005-06 Programme:High Barnet, Cricklewood, Burnt Oak, Hendon Central (additional camera) 618 10 628 10 10 618 628

Borrowing 2007/08-2010/11Total Grants Other (incl.

S106)2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 Capital Receipts

Future years

Prior years

fundingTotal2007-08

CAPITAL PROGRAMME 2007-08 TO 2010-11 CAPITAL FUNDING

Environment & Transport Services PRIOR YEARS

10

£000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000

Borrowing 2007/08-2010/11Total Grants Other (incl.

S106)2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 Capital Receipts

Future years

Prior years

fundingTotal2007-08

CAPITAL PROGRAMME 2007-08 TO 2010-11 CAPITAL FUNDING

Environment & Transport Services PRIOR YEARS

EN14 CCTV Installation:

NRF Funding East Finchley/Burnt Oak - CCTV, Development & Delivery 2007-08 433 25 458 25 25 433 458

EN15 2006-07 Town Centre Programmes:Installations in Town Centres and works to Control Room 312 312 312 312

NRF Funding East Finchley/Burnt Oak - CCTV, Development & Delivery 141 159 300 159 159 141 300

EN99 Outstanding Environment services commitments on completed schemes 89 89 89 89 0 89

HD01 Structural Maintenance of Bridges

2004-05 Programme 37 37 37 37

2007-08 allocation 120 120 120 120 0 120Programmes funded by Transport For London

HD03 Local Safety Schemes

2004-05 Programme 1,307 1,307 1,307 1,307

Chipping Barnet 39 39 39 39

Finchley and Golders Green

Hendon

2005-06 Programme 166 166 166 166

Chipping Barnet

Finchley and Golders Green

Hendon

2006-07 programme 316 272 588 272 272 316 588

Chipping Barnet 11

£000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000

Borrowing 2007/08-2010/11Total Grants Other (incl.

S106)2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 Capital Receipts

Future years

Prior years

fundingTotal2007-08

CAPITAL PROGRAMME 2007-08 TO 2010-11 CAPITAL FUNDING

Environment & Transport Services PRIOR YEARS

Finchley and Golders Green

Hendon

2007-08 programme

Chipping Barnet 243 243 243 243 0 243

Finchley and Golders Green 210 210 210 210 0 210

Hendon 223 223 223 223 0 223Mass Action Accidents on Wet Road Surface 240 240 240 240 0 240

2008-9 programme

Future Scheme Identification 35 35 35 35 0 35Mass Action Accidents on Wet Road Surface & pedestrian crossings 08-09

260 260 260 260 0 260

Schemes to be Agreed with TFL (Funding confirmed) 200 200 200 200 0 200

Hendon 300 300 300 300 0 300Programmes funded by Transport For London

HD04 Carriageway Reconstruction - Principal Roads

2004-05 Programme 3,353 3,353 3,353 3,353

2005-06 Programme 642 642 642 642

2006-07 Programme 773 657 1,430 657 657 773 1,430

2007-08 allocation

Chipping Barnet 610 610 456 155 611 0 611

Finchley and Golders Green 365 365 210 155 365 0 365

Hendon 250 243 493 407 86 493 0 493

2008-9 allocation

Hendon 651 651 651 651 0 651Programmes funded by Transport For London

12

£000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000

Borrowing 2007/08-2010/11Total Grants Other (incl.

S106)2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 Capital Receipts

Future years

Prior years

fundingTotal2007-08

CAPITAL PROGRAMME 2007-08 TO 2010-11 CAPITAL FUNDING

Environment & Transport Services PRIOR YEARS

HD07/08 Road Traffic Act - Controlled Parking Zones 858 236 103 1,197 339 339 858 1,197

Road Traffic Act - Controlled Parking Zones 08-09 400 400 400 400 0 400

Programme funded from Special Parking Account

HD10 Footway Reconstruction

Borough Roads 776 776 776 776

TFL funded schemes 435 264 699 264 264 435 699Programmes funded by Transport For London

Chipping Barnet 154 154 154 154 0 154

Finchley and Golders Green 170 170 170 170 0 170

Hendon 99 99 99 99 0 99

Schemes funded by Section 106

HD11 London Bus Priority Network

2005-06 programme 110 110 110 110

2006-07 programme 1,795 101 1,896 101 101 1,795 1,896

2007-08 programme

Consultants costs 850 850 850 850 0 850

Works 789 789 789 789 0 789

2008/9 programme 700 700 700 700 0 700

Consultants costs 719 719 719 719 0 719

WorksProgramme funded by Transport For London

13

£000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000

Borrowing 2007/08-2010/11Total Grants Other (incl.

S106)2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 Capital Receipts

Future years

Prior years

fundingTotal2007-08

CAPITAL PROGRAMME 2007-08 TO 2010-11 CAPITAL FUNDING

Environment & Transport Services PRIOR YEARS

HD12 Cycling 83 77 160 77 77 83 160

Cycling Non LCN 2008-09 52 52 52 52 0 52

Cycling LCN Schemes 60 60 60 60 0 60Programme funded by Transport For London

HD14 Pursley Road - Traffic Management 16 107 123 107 107 16 123

Funded by S106 Agreement

HD15 Safer Routes to Schools

2004-05 Programme 76 76 76 76

2005-06 Programme 227 227 227 227

2006-07 Programme 80 159 239 159 159 80 239Programmes funded by Transport For London

HD19 Cartwright Memorial, St Mary's Church 16 5 30 51 35 35 16 51

HD25 Bus Stop Accessibility 53 90 143 90 90 53 143

2008-09 allocation 30 30 30 30 0 30Programmes funded by Transport For London

HD33 Colindale Development Area

Reconstruction of the railway bridges 882 6,197 3,392 10,471 6,859 2,730 9,589 882 10,471Scheme to be funded by Growth Area Development Fund grant (£7m) and Section 106 agreement (£2.73m).

A41/Aerodrome Road junction improvement works 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 0 1,00014

£000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000

Borrowing 2007/08-2010/11Total Grants Other (incl.

S106)2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 Capital Receipts

Future years

Prior years

fundingTotal2007-08

CAPITAL PROGRAMME 2007-08 TO 2010-11 CAPITAL FUNDING

Environment & Transport Services PRIOR YEARS

Controlled Parking Zones 90 45 135 135 135 0 135Aerodrome Road - additional pedestrian facilities 100 150 250 250 250 0 250

Colindale Station Interchange 100 150 250 250 250 0 250Above schemes funded by S106 agreements

HD34 Minor TFL allocations 2006-07

Walking 50 50 50 50

Environment 3 6 9 6 6 3 9

Parallel Initiatives 25 25 25 25

Minor TFL allocations 2007-08

Walking & Cycling 75 75 75 75 0 75

Travel Awareness 15 15 15 15 0 15

Environment 25 25 25 25 0 25

Parallel Initiatives 50 50 50 50 0 50

Minor TfL allocations 2008-09

Walking 35 35 35 35 0 35

Walking - Chipping Barnet 10 10 10 10 0 10

Walking - Finchely & Golders Green 26 26 26 26 0 26

Walking - Hendon 25 25 25 25 0 25Programmes funded by Transport For London

HD35 Highways Investment 2006-07 2,343 573 247 3,163 820 820 2,343 3,163

Highways Investment 2007-08 onwards

Chipping Barnet 782 680 1,462 116 1,347 1,463 0 1,463

Finchley and Golders Green 839 656 1,495 164 1,331 1,495 0 1,49515

£000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000

Borrowing 2007/08-2010/11Total Grants Other (incl.

S106)2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 Capital Receipts

Future years

Prior years

fundingTotal2007-08

CAPITAL PROGRAMME 2007-08 TO 2010-11 CAPITAL FUNDING

Environment & Transport Services PRIOR YEARS

Hendon 886 664 1,550 227 1,323 1,550 0 1,550Programmes funded by Prudential Borrowing / S106

HD36 School Travel Plans (STP's) 2007-08 allocation 694 694 694 694 0 694

School Travel Plans (STP's) 2008-09 allocation 320 320 320 320 0 320

Programmes funded by Transport For London

HD38 Carriageways and Footways 750 750 750 2,250 2,250 2,250 0 2,250

HD39 Travel Plan Implementation 33 33 33 33 0 33

HD40 Signature Street Cleansing Service Plant & Equipment Requirements 236 74 310 310 310 0 310

HD43 Congestion Reduction Methods 300 300 300 900 900 900 0 900

Grahame ParkP/Cricklewood Transport Improvements 50 50 100 100 100 0 100

Programmes funded by Prudential Borrowing

HD44 Local Accessibility Scheme (LAS) Work Programme 40 40 40 40 0 40

HD45 Ranulf Road Highway 20 20 20 20 0 20

HD99 Outstanding Transport commitments on completed schemes 36 48 84 48 48 36 84

17,288 18,819 12,477 1,435 40 48,530 17,365 6,640 8,766 32,771 17,288 50,059

16

£000 Revised £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000

HOUSING GENERAL FUND:

HS01 Housing Association Programme 5,393 2,886 1,853 1,347 2,000 13,479 7,488 598 8,086 5,393 13,479

HS17 GF Regeneration 7,444 3,820 3,695 14,959 3,101 4,414 7,515 7,444 14,959

HS27 Disabled Facilities Grants - Mandatory 3,012 1,714 1,497 1,347 1,347 8,917 3,376 2,529 5,905 3,012 8,917

HS28 Housing Management System 334 334 334 334 0 334

15,849 8,420 7,379 2,694 3,347 37,689 3,376 7,488 6,562 4,414 21,840 15,849 37,689

Borrowing 2007/08-2010/11Total Grants Other (incl.

S106)Future years2007-08 2010-11 Capital

Receipts

Prior years

fundingTotal

CAPITAL PROGRAMME 2007-08 TO 2010-11 CAPITAL FUNDING

Housing General Fund PRIOR YEARS 2008-09 2009-10

17

No. of Grants Capital Receipts Borrowing

units START END

£000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000

EALING FAMILY HOUSING ASSOCIATION

Tarling Rd Site, N2

11 X family houses for rent and 6 flats for 17 Jun-06 Jun-07 2,044 511 3,066 511 511 2,044 2,555

shared ownership including a 2 x 4 bed

wheelchair houses for rent

FAMILY HOUSING ASSOCIATION -

Bunns Lane

New Build s106 site. 12 x two bed flats for rent 12 Apr-07 Apr-08 861 215 1,938 1,076 1,076 1,076

HABINTEG HOUSING ASSOCIATION

Northfields Road Garage Site

2 new homes including 3 bedroom 2 Jan-07 Jul-07 191 48 287 48 48 191 239

wheelchair flat

NOTTING HILL HOUSING TRUST -New Fieldways 20 Jan-06 Jun-08 1,814 454 2,268 454 454 1,814 2,268

New build site for 20 flats for rent

METROPOLITAN HOUSING TRUST

Page Street, NW7

5 x 4 bedroom homes to rent secured 5 Mar-06 Apr-07 544 136 1,224 680 680 680

through a S106 agreement

SUTHERLAND HOUSING ASSOCIATION

(part of the Genesis Housing Group)

Ossidge Park, N20

16 homes 1 and 2 bedroomed to be sold 16 Feb-06 Apr-07 374 94 562 55 39 94 374 468

as shared ownership

plus an additional 13 units to be funded

by the HA using recycled grant

CAPITAL PROGRAMME 2007 - 2008 TO 2010 - 2011 CAPITAL FUNDING

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 Total 2007/08-2010/11

Other (incl. S106)

Prior years funding TotalPRIOR

YEARSHousing Associations IMPLEMENTATION

18

No. of Grants Capital Receipts Borrowing

units START END

£000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000

CAPITAL PROGRAMME 2007 - 2008 TO 2010 - 2011 CAPITAL FUNDING

2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 Total 2007/08-2010/11

Other (incl. S106)

Prior years funding TotalPRIOR

YEARSHousing Associations IMPLEMENTATION

PADDINGTON CHURCHES HOUSING ASSOCIATION -

Highway Agency Properties

Purchase and refurbishment / repair of family units. 4 Mar-02 Dec-07 420 32 22 54 54 54 420 474

PADDINGTON CHURCHES HOUSING ASSOCIATION -

Nicoll Court/Wade Court

7 x family sized new build units - Borough Disposal 7 Sep-06 Aug-07 550 137 137 137 137 550 687

PADDINGTON CHURCHES HOUSING ASSOCIATION

Pert Close, N10

New build of family sized houses to meet 4 Mar-07 Mar-08 325 325 650 650 650 650

to meet current housing needs

WARDEN HOUSING ASSOCIATION

Long Lane, N2

6 large family houses 6 Jun-07 Jun-07 691 691 2,073 1,382 1,382 1,382

NEW BUILD OPPORTUNITIES

S106 and Local Authority site disposals 10 t.b.a t.b.a 1,000 2,000 3,000 3,000 3,000 3,000

HOUSING ASSOCIATIONS TOTAL 5,393 2,886 1,853 1,347 2,000 13,479 7,488 598 8,086 5393 13,479

This schedule includes overprogramming as some schemes may not be achievable. They may be delayed, deferred or deleted.

The council will receive 100% nomination rights for a minimum of 10 years.

19

£000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000

LP01 Local Land Charges 178 8 186 8 8 178 186

178 8 186 8 8 178 186

CAPITAL FUNDINGCAPITAL PROGRAMME 2007-08 TO 2010-11

Grants BorrowingCapital Receipts

Other (incl. S106)2009-10 Future

yearsPlanning & Environmental ProtectionPrior years

fundingTotalTotal2010-11 2007/08-

2010/11PRIOR YEARS 2008-092007-08

20

£000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000

IT02 GIS Internet Project 10 10 20 10 10 10 20

IT03 Modernising Our Infrastructure 4,428 249 4,677 249 249 4,428 4,677

IT04 Modernising Core Systems 11,471 300 11,771 300 300 11,471 11,771

Electronic Social Care Record (ESCR) 350 219 569 569 569 569Electronic Documents and Records Management System (EDRM) 532 1,200 3,771 5,503 4 1,869 3,098 4,971 532 5,503

IT06 Mobile Working Strategy Development 8 72 80 80 80 80

IT07 NLBP Ground Floor Occupation - IT costs of additional staff relocated to NLBP 211 199 410 199 199 211 410

IT09 Customer Relationship Management System (CRM) 1,200 1,400 2,600 2,600 2,600 2,600

IT10 Modernising the Way We Work 1,524 1,500 1,500 2,000 6,524 284 6,240 6,524 6,524

IT11 Norwell Case Management Implementation 12 68 80 68 68 12 80

IT12 Business Systems Disaster Recovery 100 70 70 70 70 380 380 380 380

IT13 Project & Programme Management Software 145 145 145 145 145

IT14 Shared Service Centre 750 750 750 750 750

IT15 SWIFT 580 580 580 580 580

Borrowing 2007/08-2010/11Total Grants Other (incl.

S106)Future years2007-08 2010-11 Capital

Receipts

Prior years

fundingTotal

CAPITAL PROGRAMME 2007-08 TO 2010-11 CAPITAL FUNDING

Resources PRIOR YEARS 2008-09 2009-10

21

£000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000

Borrowing 2007/08-2010/11Total Grants Other (incl.

S106)Future years2007-08 2010-11 Capital

Receipts

Prior years

fundingTotal

CAPITAL PROGRAMME 2007-08 TO 2010-11 CAPITAL FUNDING

Resources PRIOR YEARS 2008-09 2009-10

IT16 Education Management Information System 282 71 353 71 71 282 353

CE03 Arts Centre Development 3,174 342 3,516 342 342 3,174 3,516

CE05 Copthall Stadium - resurfacing of athletics track 347 14 14 375 28 28 347 375

CE06 NRF funding 15 15 15 15

HD41 Land & Assets Programme

Plantech implementation programme 400 208 608 608 608 608

GIS 186 186 186 186 186

HD42 Arts Depot lift 95 95 95 95 95

ED23 PSCIP

Procurement & Consultant costs 203 800 620 1,420 1,420 1,420 203 1,623

HE01 North London Business Park - relocation of staff

IT costs including desktop and applications, data and voice networks, internal cabling and communications

2,328 2,328 2,328 2,328

Planning - reception area 11 9 80 100 89 89 11 100

HE08 Energy Efficiency Measures 29 445 474 474 474 474

22

£000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000

Borrowing 2007/08-2010/11Total Grants Other (incl.

S106)Future years2007-08 2010-11 Capital

Receipts

Prior years

fundingTotal

CAPITAL PROGRAMME 2007-08 TO 2010-11 CAPITAL FUNDING

Resources PRIOR YEARS 2008-09 2009-10

HE09 Hendon Complex

Hendon Complex Midd Uni Move 9 786 897 1,692 1,683 1,683 9 1,692HTH Committee room refurb 715 715 715 715 0 715

HE10 West of Borough Customer Access Facility (Burnt Oak) 600 400 1,000 1,000 1,000 0 1,000

HE11 Friary House 700 700 700 700 700

HE99 Outstanding commitments on completed schemes 9 9 9 9 0 9

23,018 10,079 11,071 1,570 2,070 70 47,878 303 1,869 1,000 21,688 24,860 23,018 47,878

23

£000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000

SD02 Town Centre Regeneration and Improvement

North Finchley 13 94 107 94 94 13 107

East Finchley 51 51 102 51 51 51 102

Finchley Central 99 8 107 8 8 99 107

SD03 Town Centre Initiatives - North Finchley Regeneration

Town Centre traffic management schemes 59 71 130 71 71 59 130

Arts Centre development - contribution to Highways works 150 150 150 150 0 150

222 374 596 374 374 222 596

Borrowing 2007/08-2010/11Total Grants

Other (incl. S106)

Future years2007-08 2010-11 Capital

Receipts

Prior years

fundingTotal

CAPITAL PROGRAMME 2007-08 TO 2010-11 CAPITAL FUNDING

Strategic Development PRIOR YEARS 2008-09 2009-10

24

£000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000 £000

HRA PROGRAMME:

Cash Incentives - Managed by Barnet Homes 1,976 564 600 500 500 4,140 2,164 2,164 1,976 4,140

Housing Renovation ProgrammeCurrent Programme - Managed by Barnet Homes

Transitional Programme 24,031 180 24,211 180 180 24,031 24,211

Partnering Packages

Barnet 10,358 9,750 6,872 4,977 3,150 35,107 11,952 3,640 9,157 24,749 10,358 35,107

Finchley 5,126 6,450 5,532 6,307 3,994 27,409 22,283 22,283 5,126 27,409

Hendon/Edgware 11,635 15,000 13,466 7,365 47,466 4,560 7,541 23,730 35,831 11,635 47,466

Sheltered/Hostles 3,001 3,170 3,316 9,487 2,334 4,152 6,486 3,001 9,487

Adaptations 2,757 1,362 1,395 1,430 1,466 8,410 3,115 2,538 5,653 2,757 8,410

Regeneration Estates 877 1,051 1,076 1,104 633 4,741 3,864 3,864 877 4,741

Miscellaneous Works 5,193 1,500 1,336 1,065 1,495 10,589 5,396 5,396 5,193 10,589

Extensions and Deconversions 250 250 100 150 250 250

Summers Lane Development 450 450 450 450

HRA Regeneration 1,640 1,640 1,640 1,640

67,044 39,027 33,843 22,748 11,238 173,900 100 31,551 11,181 4,702 59,322 106,856 67,044 173,900

CAPITAL PROGRAMME 2007-08 TO 2010-11 CAPITAL FUNDING

Housing Revenue Account PRIOR YEARS 2008-09 2009-10 Future

yearsCapital

Receipts

Prior years

fundingTotalMRA2007-08 2010-11 Borrowing 2007/08-

2010/11Total Grants Other (incl. S106)

25

Cost Centre2007/8 Original

Estimate2007/8 Current

Estimate2008/9 Original

Estimate£ £ £

Business & Performance Support 3,109,380 3,752,190 4,215,710 Government Grant (16,922,750) (17,178,070) (13,694,530)Business & Performance (13,813,370) (13,425,880) (9,478,820) Care Management & Comissioning OA 5,051,970 5,060,390 4,854,890 Occupational Therapy 894,240 938,420 959,740 Care Management & Commissioning EMI 407,730 392,040 361,790 External Placements & Services OA 36,466,670 35,293,460 33,951,360 External Placements & Services EMI 1,899,590 2,353,170 3,061,860 Other Services OA 111,610 111,610 96,610 Supporting People Team 284,820 284,820 255,650 External Placements & Services SP 7,497,050 7,497,050 7,688,830Health Partnership Older Adults 52,613,680 51,930,960 51,230,730 Younger Adults Management 202,400 156,380 229,820 Direct Payment Team 140,580 189,460 211,840 Commissioning (PSI & LD) 365,800 367,780 277,170 Care Management LD 787,520 791,440 767,550 Care Management & Commissioning MH 2,100,450 2,243,870 2,256,730 Care Management PSI 1,096,860 940,630 965,620 External Placements & Services LD 18,551,660 19,031,540 19,964,490 In House Provision LD 5,612,710 5,622,110 5,435,720 External Placements & Services MH 4,100,270 4,782,420 5,125,870 In House Provision MH 595,730 598,330 609,280 External Placements & Services PSI 5,674,720 6,843,430 6,869,550 In House Provision PSI 726,840 847,150 625,810 Drugs & Alcohol Services 209,200 209,200 206,910 HIV/AIDS Services 314,030 353,430 255,480Health Partnership Younger Adults 40,478,770 42,977,170 43,801,840Adult Social Services 79,279,080 81,482,250 85,553,750

Subjective Analysis2007/8 Original

Estimate2007/8 Current

Estimate2008/9 Original

Estimate£ £ £

ExpenditureEmployees 19,356,240 19,588,810 20,238,100Premises 327,560 393,480 393,480Transport 1,696,100 1,733,700 1,644,100Supplies and Services 13,100,660 13,453,910 12,815,600Third Party Payments 74,410,630 75,216,400 73,038,750Transfer Payments 3,122,280 3,732,050 3,732,050Capital Depreciation Charges 291,960 291,960 291,960Contingency 376,910 2,654,340Total Expenditure 112,305,430 114,787,220 114,808,380IncomeGovernment Grants (16,922,750) (17,178,070) (13,694,530)Other Grants, Reimbursements and Contributions (5,244,720) (5,288,460) (3,982,850)Customer & Client Receipts (10,858,880) (10,838,440) (11,577,250)Total Income (33,026,350) (33,304,970) (29,254,630)Net Expenditure 79,279,080 81,482,250 85,553,750

Revenue Budget 2008-09

ADULT SOCIAL SERVICES

26

CENTRAL EXPENSES

Profit centre 2007/8 Original Estimate

2007/8 Current Estimate

2008/9 Original Estimate

£ £ £ 10014 Miscellaneous Finance 2,830,480 2,809,880 2,818,180 10015 Corporate Subscriptions 135,980 135,980 139,380 10016 Levies 21,826,330 21,880,150 21,982,340 10017 Central Contingency 4,196,900 666,520 3,419,480 10018 Rate Relief 414,050 414,050 424,620 10019 Capital Financing & Depreciation (12,809,560) (12,691,950) (9,735,030) 10699 Early Retirement Costs 3,204,360 3,224,960 4,905,590 10700 Corporate Fees & Charges 716,340 716,340 734,250 10718 Car Leasing 2,210 2,210 2,210

Central Expenses 20,517,090 17,158,140 24,691,020

Subjective Analysis2007/8 Original

Estimate2007/8 Current

Estimate2008/9 Original

Estimate£ £ £

ExpenditureEmployees 3,416,110 3,394,520 5,101,520Premises 12,350 12,350 12,660Transport 2,210 2,210 2,210Supplies and Services 1,161,740 1,512,690 1,043,890Third Party Payments 21,826,330 21,880,150 22,136,430Transfer Payments 412,340 412,340 422,690Contributions to Reserves 150,000 150,000 150,000Central Contingency (net) 4,196,900 666,520 3,419,480Depreciation Contra (18,852,600) (19,378,510) (18,852,600)Capital Financing & Net Interest Receipts 8,322,010 8,636,170 11,388,730

Total Expenditure 20,647,390 17,288,440 24,825,010IncomeOther Grants, Reimbursements and Contributions (147,640) (147,640) (151,330)Customer & Client Receipts 26,040 26,040 26,040Miscellaneous Interest Receipts (8,700) (8,700) (8,700)

Total Income (130,300) (130,300) (133,990)Net Expenditure 20,517,090 17,158,140 24,691,020

Revenue Budget 2008-09

27

CENTRAL EXPENSES

Revenue Budget 2008-09

Levies 2007/8 Original Estimate

2007/8 Current Estimate

2008/9 Original Estimate

£ £ £Other Establishments - Third part PaymentsThames 21 5,120 5,120 5,250Probation Service - Justices of the Peace 780 780 810Environment Agency 249,940 248,390 274,510Lea Valley Regional Park 411,430 411,420 424,420London Pension Funds 377,530 404,450 573,010Traffic Control Signals Unit 411,630 411,630 422,750Concessionary Fares 10,982,990 10,982,990 10,138,420

12,439,420 12,464,780 11,839,170Joint Authorities - Third Party PaymentsNorth London Waste Authority 8,013,900 8,042,360 8,777,410Coroners Court 208,000 208,000 213,200

8,221,900 8,250,360 8,990,610Other Local Authorities - Third PartyLondon Boroughs Grants 1,165,010 1,165,010 1,152,560

Total Levies 21,826,330 21,880,150 21,982,340

28

Cost Centre 2007/8 Original Estimate

2007/8 Current Estimate

2008/9 Original Estimate

£ £ £0

10682 Strategic Directors 838,190 842,070 862,830 10683 Local Partnerships 393,780 376,750 358,910 11112 Leader's Office 0 0 20,000 10690 Arts Centre Development 295,560 295,560 295,560*** Strategic Directors' 1,527,530 1,514,380 1,537,300 10377 Web Team 98,310 202,220 206,740 10685 Consultation 145,510 145,850 149,490 10689 Communications 530,230 428,900 439,310** Communications 774,050 776,970 795,540 10398 Civic Events 82,580 82,750 84,740** Civic Events 82,580 82,750 84,740 10392 Mayoral Support 159,180 165,200 168,840** Mayoral 159,180 165,200 168,840 10397 Municipal Links 8,840 8,840 9,060** Municipal Links 8,840 8,840 9,060*** Communications & Consultation 1,024,650 1,033,760 1,058,180Chief Executive, CC & PP 2,552,180 2,548,140 2,595,480

Subjective Analysis 2007/8 Original Estimate

2007/8 Current Estimate

2008/9 Original Estimate

£ £ £ExpenditureEmployees 1,802,650 1,911,970 1,932,610Premises 6,710 2,490 2,540Transport 35,690 32,390 32,840Supplies and Services 427,420 415,580 424,590Secondary Recharges 0 (50,000) (51,250)Capital Depreciation Charges 318,000 318,000 318,000Contingency 20,000 20,000Total Expenditure 2,610,470 2,630,430 2,679,330IncomeGovernment Grants (20,000) (20,000) (20,000)Recharges (17,950) (41,950) (43,000)Customer & Client Receipts (20,340) (20,340) (20,850)Total Income (58,290) (82,290) (83,850)Net Expenditure 2,552,180 2,548,140 2,595,480

Revenue Budget 2008-09

CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND COMMUNICATIONS & CONSULTATION AND POLICY & PARTNERSHIPS

29

Profit center 2007/8 Original Estimate

2007/8 Current Estimate

2008/9 Original Estimate

£ £ £Safeguarding & Social Care

**** Looking after Children 18,812,200 18,619,840 19,499,440**** Supporting Families 4,391,050 4,871,140 4,554,905**** Child Care 6,931,900 6,937,570 6,348,040**** Safeguarding 746,280 820,180 833,510* **** Safeguarding & Social Care 30,881,430 31,248,730 31,235,895**** SEN Investment Strategy 412,270 437,360 380,590**** Admissions to Schools 595,930 553,890 567,630**** Attendance at Schools 653,450 656,490 656,340**** Complex Needs 16,830,110 16,837,620 17,370,462**** Youth & Connexions 1,983,680 2,027,530 1,695,370**** Voice of the Child 15,560 25,640 66,420**** Pupil Referral Units 1,241,960 1,288,140 1,284,470* **** Inclusion 21,792,210 21,885,920 22,082,012

Schools & Learning**** Schools Causing Concern 229,550 229,550 235,160**** Challenge & Intervention 1,178,040 1,146,520 1,091,850**** Support & Development 584,480 904,456 523,460**** Access to Learning 1,749,970 1,790,850 1,667,380**** Libraries Service 7,029,420 7,126,990 7,221,220* **** Schools & Learning 10,771,460 11,198,366 10,739,070

Partnership, Performance & Planning**** Part.Perf.& Planning - Central Costs 635,240 82,500 124,420**** Children's Service Finance 10,300,500 9,878,825 10,106,540**** Organisational Development 1,581,260 1,770,140 1,529,525**** RMIT 425,920 432,980 373,760**** Schools Catering (45,180) (33,700) (36,190)**** CS Capital Programme 280,980 282,260 289,270* **** Partnership, Performance & Planning 13,178,720 12,413,005 12,387,325

Schools Funding**** Schools Funding 164,832,740 165,176,159 173,901,900* **** Schools Funding 164,832,740 165,176,159 173,901,900* **** Dedicated Schools Grant (184,998,170) (184,998,170) (193,793,972)

**** Children's Service Management 695,630 863,310 866,490* **** Children's Service Grants (812,280) (1,035,920) 0

****** Children's Service 56,341,740 56,751,400 57,418,720

Revenue Budget 2008-09CHILDREN'S SERVICE

30

Subjective Analysis 2007/8 Original Estimate

2007/8 Current Estimate

2008/9 Original Estimate

£ £ £ExpenditureEmployee Related 218,322,735 221,412,638 226,796,790Premises Related 15,379,945 16,014,131 14,609,964Transport Related 4,841,540 4,716,950 4,788,950Supplies and Services 42,912,495 47,371,176 49,234,039Third Party Payments 25,756,270 25,342,795 29,207,713Transfer Payments 10,020,725 (1,864,408) 10,270,243Support Services 4,625,850 5,413,795 3,864,993Capital Charges 6,015,623 9,109,876 8,710,790Secondary Recharges 290,350 291,800 299,070Expenditure Total 328,165,533 327,808,753 347,782,552IncomeGovernment Grants (249,277,795) (244,127,658) (262,497,394)Other Grants, Reimbursements & Contribs (3,180,361) (3,973,452) (4,704,731)Customer & Client Receipts (19,365,637) (22,956,243) (23,161,707)Income Total (271,823,793) (271,057,353) (290,363,832)Net Expenditure 56,341,740 56,751,400 57,418,720

Revenue Budget 2008-09CHILDREN'S SERVICE

31

Cost Centre 2007/8 Original Estimate

2007/8 Current Estimate

2008/9 Original Estimate

£ £ £ 11095 Performance and OD Team 0 126,150 206,320**** Performance and OD Team 0 126,150 206,320 10379 Legal Mgmt & Bus Sup 687,580 499,260 320,890 10380 Legal Advocacy Team 563,780 498,150 549,420 10381 Legal Commercial Team 220,620 427,690 470,000 10382 Legal Community Team 557,840 418,330 361,660 10869 BS-Barnet Homes Disbursements (287,000) (287,000) (294,180)**** Legal Services 1,742,820 1,556,430 1,407,790 10391 Committee Administration 691,090 707,860 803,080** Committee Administration 691,090 707,860 803,080 10393 Members Support 95,040 81,380 83,350 10394 Cabinet Support 59,810 60,600 62,110 10395 Political Assistants 86,650 84,220 86,300 10396 Members Allowances 1,316,850 1,341,350 1,373,080** Members' Support 1,558,350 1,567,550 1,604,840**** Democratic Srvices 2,249,440 2,275,410 2,407,920 10383 Registration of Electors 304,960 305,950 313,790 10388 Municipal Elections 26,700 26,700 27,320*** Elections 331,660 332,650 341,110 10400 Civil Protection 169,290 189,850 173,490*** Civil Protection 169,290 189,850 173,490 10651 CCTV 1,201,780 1,143,540 1,224,180 10653 Priority Intervention Team 1,107,810 1,093,840 981,160 10673 Watling Market 6,330 6,400 6,400 10674 Trading Standards 417,170 418,940 256,230 10822 Licensing (73,860) (59,330) (98,020)*** Community Protection 2,659,230 2,603,390 2,369,950 10021 Safer Communities Unit 241,590 114,390 120,060 10581 Drug Intervention Programme 0 0 0 10583 Drug And Alcohol Team 27,550 28,180 31,200 10996 SSCF 0 0 0*** Community Safety 269,140 142,570 151,260 10002 CAFT 434,360 323,060 378,110*** Corporate Anti-Fraud Team 434,360 323,060 378,110**** Operational Governance 3,863,680 3,591,520 3,413,920 10001 Internal Audit 573,290 621,050 605,480**** Internal Audit 573,290 621,050 605,480 11096 Corp Gov Directors 0 351,760 360,510**** Corporate Governance Directors 0 351,760 360,510Corporate Governance Directorate 8,429,230 8,522,320 8,401,940

Revenue Budget 2008-09CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

32

Subjective Analysis 2007/8 Original Estimate

2007/8 Current Estimate

2008/9 Original Estimate

£ £ £ExpenditureEmployees 8,004,950 8,279,610 8,281,540Premises 40,830 37,280 23,190Transport 120,510 90,900 80,480Supplies and Services 2,376,290 2,335,960 2,267,100Third Party Payments 12000 14000 14,350Capital Depreciation Charges 374,760 266,270 266,270Secondary Recharges 22,340 0 0Total Expenditure 10,951,680 11,024,020 10,932,930IncomeGovernment Grants (1,341,630) (1,238,390) (1,239,840)Other Grants, Reimbursements and Contributions (69,550) (65,660) (66,800)Customer & Client Receipts (769,120) (1,142,500) (1,167,820)Recharges (342,150) (55,150) (56,530)Total Income (2,522,450) (2,501,700) (2,530,990)Net Expenditure 8,429,230 8,522,320 8,401,940

Revenue Budget 2008-09CORPORATE GOVERNANCE

33

Cost Centre2007/8 Original

Estimate2007/8 Current

Estimate2008/9 Original

Estimate£ £ £

10617 HD-Mngmnt & Perform 783,940 894,340 863,430 10669 Human Resources 166,240** Environment&Transport Management & A 950,180 894,340 863,430 10618 Highways Other 1,072,800 2,928 (563,800)** Highways 1,072,800 2,928 (563,800) 10619 Drainage (Gully Cleansing) 126,750 403,417 594,530 10620 Winter Maintenance 556,650 556,650 565,580 10622 Traffic Census 14,340 14,410 14,770 10623 Safer Routes 83,660 214,165 217,840 10624 School Crossing Patrol 60,840 61,080 62,510 10625 Technical Survey 24,260 24,260 24,870 10627 Highway Drainage (Repairs) 124,390 10628 Public Conveniences 42,530 42,530 45,000 10629 Water Courses 84,310 10635 Road Structural Planned 3,271,140 3,618,375 3,730,070 10638 Traffic Management 53,440 53,460 54,670 10890 Road Structural Responsive 1,657,700 1,979,012 2,191,910** Highways Implementation 6,100,010 6,967,359 7,501,750 10631 R.A.S.W.A. (93,780) (94,086) (91,290) 10632 Private Works Reinstatement (204,920) 20,773 54,970 10633 Rechargeable works - other (214,740) (210,561) (118,780) 11097 Rechargeable work cross over 0 (199,011) (145,990)** Highways Inspection & Enforcement (513,440) (482,885) (301,090) 10637 Street Lighting 2,302,660 2,488,368 2,633,325** Street Lighting 2,302,660 2,488,368 2,633,325 10658 Abandoned Vehicles 62,030** Abandoned Vehicles 62,030 0 0 10664 HM-Responsive 8,360 10,830 8,850 10938 HM-Winter Maintenance 1,000 1,300 650 10939 HM-Stand-by 700 910 580 10941 HM-Sign Erection 2,300 2,980 3,030** Highways Maintenance 12,360 16,020 13,110 10644 Car Parks (454,350) (454,350) (467,950)** Car Parks (454,350) (434,350) (467,950) 10621 War Memorials 60,070 60,070 61,570 10639 Asset Management 136,060 137,980 138,000** Environment&Transport Asset Manageme 196,130 198,050 199,570 10343 ES-Policy & Perfmnce 79,030 0** StreetScene&Greenspaces Management& 79,030 0 0 10770 ES-Transport MaH Drivers 1,950 2,770 10771 ES-Transport Oheads 298,120 298,950 226,680 10772 ES-Vehmtce (93,670) (91,130) (107,760) 10773 ES-Spot Hires 0 0 (20,000) 10774 ES-Leases & SC Rech (557,420) (557,420) (458,370) 10775 ES-SEN Transp (84,730) (84,050) (86,380) 10776 ES-Comctran (66,530) (63,290) (76,850)** Transport (502,280) (494,170) (522,680) 10656 Recycling 2,849,220 2,650,680 3,485,650 10657 Civic Amenities Sites 538,910 538,910 551,070** Recycling/Waste Strategy 3,388,130 3,189,590 4,036,720 10365 Verge & Tree 962,960 471,450 483,240 10660 Allotments (6,650) (6,650) (4,450) 10764 Parks & Open Spaces 2,039,870 4,248,620 4,045,500

Revenue Budget 2008-09

ENVIRONMENT & TRANSPORT

34

Cost Centre2007/8 Original

Estimate2007/8 Current

Estimate2008/9 Original

Estimate

Revenue Budget 2008-09

ENVIRONMENT & TRANSPORT

10765 Sports Grounds 496,110 540,970 552,010 10766 Green Belt Lands (32,200) (32,200) (32,030) 10767 Golf Courses&Sprt G 705,330 10768 King George Playing Fields 14,040 14,040 14,040 10882 Park&O SpCycGrndMtce 838,840 0 10940 HM-Playgrounds 94,880 0 10952 Green Spaces Trees Management 641,500 641,500 645,600** Parks & Greenspaces Development 5,754,680 5,877,730 5,703,910 10663 Grounds Maintenance 109,490 0** Grounds Maintenance 109,490 0 0 10652 Street Cleansing 4,795,150 4,858,210 4,963,490 10655 Domestic Refuse 5,349,830 5,368,720 5,399,800** Refuse & Cleaning 10,144,980 10,226,930 10,363,290 10654 Trade Waste (1,143,670) (1,143,080) (1,252,000)

** Trade Waste (1,143,670) (1,143,080) (1,252,000)Enviroment & Transport Services 27,558,740 27,306,830 28,207,590

Subjective Analysis2007/8 Original

Estimate2007/8 Current

Estimate2008/9 Original

Estimate£ £ £

ExpenditureEmployees 17,630,380 17,545,890 18,162,260Premises 5,254,340 2,551,770 2,481,290Transport 4,739,410 4,760,410 4,453,100Supplies and Services 6,120,000 6,392,920 5,706,100Third Party Payments 563,570 563,570 578,830Transfers (18,000)Capital Depreciation Charges 3,115,800 3,115,800 3,115,800Secondary Recharges 2,060,940 4,058,072 4,317,910Total Expenditure 39,484,440 38,988,432 38,797,290IncomeGovernment Grants (2,803,950) (2,803,950) (2,665,070)Other Grants, Reimbursements and Contributions (410,360) (610,360) (76,000)Customer & Client Receipts (8,635,840) (8,191,742) (7,747,360)Interest (75,550) (75,550) (101,270)Total Income (11,925,700) (11,681,602) (10,589,700)Net Expenditure 27,558,740 27,306,830 28,207,590

35

Cost Centre 2007/8 Original Estimate

2007/8 Current Estimate

2008/9 Original Estimate

£ £ £ 10020 Housing & Development 107,100 107,630 20,310 10035 Claremont Rd Community Centre 2,000 2,450 2,360**** Housing Management 109,100 110,080 22,670 10026 Policy& performance 144,000 90,860 149,890 10025 Housing initiatives 107,080 107,570 110,230**** Policy, Performance & Initiatives 251,080 198,430 260,120 10028 HNR Management Team 198,210 208,240 222,970 10029 Housing Advice 289,040 316,640 421,150 10031 Homeless Persons 419,490 508,540 175,700 10032 Housing Resources Team 303,540 359,280 360,080 10991 Complaints & Sys Imp 0 117,050 113,270 10027 Housing Grant Payments 161,390 161,390 165,420 10033 Homelessness Grant 37,980 (221,880) 140 10034 Housing Supporting People 0 1,670 1,680 10030 Temporary Accommodation 338,750 824,540 523,350 10281 Rent Deposit Scheme 0 100,000 10883 Private Sector Leasing 0 (494,120) (446,990) 10992 Barbara Langstone House 0 (156,860) (176,560) 10993 Hsg EDRM 0 35,170 170**** Housing Needs & Resources 1,360,375 1,759,660 1,360,380Housing General Fund 2,108,580 2,068,170 1,643,170

Subjective Analysis 2007/8 Original Estimate

2007/8 Current Estimate

2008/9 Original Estimate

£ £ £ExpenditureEmployees 1,979,020 2,897,680 2,860,960Premises 985,940 1,018,530 927,750Transport 23,050 33,050 33,890Supplies and Services 452,290 873,720 931,630Third Party Payments 8,158,600 7,992,850 8,090,170Capital Depreciation Charges 56,160 56,160 56,160Secondary Recharges (172,020) (649,020) (660,660)Total Expenditure 11,483,040 12,222,970 12,239,900IncomeGovernment Grants (186,000) (286,000) (186,000)Other Grants, Reimbursements and Contributions (911,920) (200,920) (205,950)Customer & Client Receipts (8,276,540) (9,667,880) (10,204,780)Total Income (9,374,460) (10,154,800) (10,596,730)Net Expenditure 2,108,580 2,068,170 1,643,170

Revenue Budget 2008-09

HOUSING GENERAL FUND

36

2007/08 2008/09Original OriginalBudget Budget

£ £IncomeDwelling rents (42,679,000) (44,675,000)Non-dwelling rents (1,352,000) (1,354,000)Tenants' Charges for services and facilities (2,903,340) (3,128,590)Leaseholder' Charges for Services and Facilities (2,616,750) (2,750,000)

Total Income (49,551,090) (51,907,590)

ExpenditureRepairs and Maintenance 8,875,000 8,500,000Supervision and management General 14,748,340 14,668,590 Special 5,334,390 5,581,000Rents, Rates, taxes and other charges 115,710 118,000Negative housing revenue account subsidy payable 9,320,000 10,872,000Depreciation and impairment of fixed assets 8,098,000 8,060,000Debt Management Costs 3,123,000 4,142,000Increase in bad debt provision 80,000 220,000

Sums directed by the Secretary of State that are income in accordance with UK GAAP 350,000 0

Total Expenditure 50,044,440 52,161,590

Net Cost of HRA Services 493,350 254,000

Interest and investment income (250,000) (254,000)

Deficit for the year on HRA services 243,350 0

HOUSING REVENUE ACCOUNT

Revenue Budget 2008-09

37

Cost Centre2007/8 Original

Estimate2007/8 Current

Estimate2008/9 Original

Estimate£ £ £

10763 ES Mgt 320,880 663,402 616,060*** Plng & Env Protection - Management&A 320,880 663,402 616,060 10038 Planning Service (299,710) (291,890) (504,600) 11073 Planning Core Services 341,540 343,920 505,540 11074 Planning Strategic Services 454,490 458,170 775,570*** Planning 496,320 510,200 776,510 10641 Building Inspection 160,170 161,010 179,620 10642 Structures (64,900) (64,050) (65,690) 10643 Building Control (250,700) (246,900) (304,220)*** Building Control (155,430) (149,940) (190,290) 10667 Care & Repair (2,690) (28,400) (27,690)*** Environmental Services Care & Repair (2,690) (28,400) (27,690) 10661 Hendon Cemetery (282,400) (281,660) (331,730) 10671 Mortuary 134,800 135,200 138,240 10818 Hendon Crematorium (269,390) (269,170) (294,280) 10819 Cem&Crem Management 190,650 217,214 228,910*** Mortuary & Cemetery (226,340) (198,416) (258,860) 10666 Private Sector Housing 1,867,930 1,227,349 1,245,090 10672 Works in Default 520 (31,130) (31,910) 10958 Pest Control 860 120 (390) 11102 Public Health & Nuisance 0 396,049 403,030*** Environmental Health Private Hou 1,869,310 1,592,388 1,615,820 10821 Food Safety 414,260 421,310 419,070 10823 H and S & Scfc Servs 353,130 291,216 310,600*** ES Health & Sustainability 767,390 712,526 729,670 10390 Land Charges (2,121,130) (2,120,660) (1,617,600)*** Land Charges (2,121,130) (2,120,660) (1,617,600)Planning & Environmental Protection 948,310 981,100 1,643,620

Revenue Budget 2008-09

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

38

Subjective Analysis2007/8 Original

Estimate2007/8 Current

Estimate2008/9 Original

Estimate£ £ £

ExpenditureEmployees 6,762,440 6,801,230 7,373,540Premises 205,460 203,360 205,240Transport 198,770 198,770 176,480Supplies and Services 758,900 755,000 885,420Third Party Payments 12,650 12,650 11,920Capital Depreciation Charges 987100 987,100 987,100Secondary Recharges (266,430) (266,430) (269,730)Total Expenditure 8,658,890 8,691,680 9,369,970IncomeGovernment Grants (729,000) (729,000) (374,000)Other Grants, Reimbursements and Contributions (189,350) (189,350) (303,680)Customer & Client Receipts (6,792,230) (6,792,230) (7,048,670)Total Income (7,710,580) (7,710,580) (7,726,350)Net Expenditure 948,310 981,100 1,643,620

Revenue Budget 2008-09PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

39

Cost Centre 2007/8 Original Estimate

2007/8 Current Estimate

2008/9 Original Estimate

£ £ £**** Resources Management 593,380 622,520 604,420*** Strategic Finance 634,370 705,092 767,360*** Property & Public Offices 6,607,540 7,489,760 8,505,870*** Strategic HR 311,590 94,810 78,590**** Strategic Services 7,553,500 8,289,662 9,351,820*** Finance Shared Services 2,035,490 1,824,048 1,802,390*** Revenues & Benefits 4,489,220 4,550,210 4,901,880*** Shared Service Centre 2,198,940 2,066,980 2,124,120*** Information Systems 5,399,770 5,335,480 5,277,990*** HR shared Services 632,170 1,252,560 1,303,730*** Procurement 3,684,050 3,754,350 3,662,590**** Shared Services 18,439,640 18,783,628 19,072,700*** Information & Improvement Service 755,430 630,910 657,940** Customer Services 1,149,110 1,176,560 1,406,170** Registration of Births Deaths and Marriages 6,930 9,200 (10,880)*** ODCS Customer Services 1,156,040 1,185,760 1,395,290*** Organisational Development 371,640 460,890 436,600**** Organisational Development & Cust Sr 2,283,110 2,277,560 2,489,830*** Devolved Heads of Finance 265,270 266,550 273,080**** Devolved Services 265,270 266,550 273,080Resources Directorate 29,134,900 30,239,920 31,791,850

Subjective Analysis 2007/8 Original Estimate

2007/8 Current Estimate

2008/9 Original Estimate

£ £ £ExpenditureEmployees 19,898,740 20,499,640 20,888,780Premises 5,843,270 6,766,360 8,338,590Transport 171,540 161,920 161,980Supplies and Services 8,350,180 8,117,150 8,519,540Third Party Payments 1,552,800 1,602,800 1,591,630Transfer Payments 170,272,420 170,303,170 174,560,750Capital Depreciation Charges 2,852,710 2,852,710 2,849,940Contingency 0 -15000 112,600Secondary Recharges (593,970)Total Expenditure 208,347,690 210,288,750 217,023,810IncomeGovernment Grants (170,870,470) (170,805,150) (175,179,790)Other Grants, Reimbursements and Contributions (1,763,980) (1,787,920) (1,864,300)Customer & Client Receipts (3,287,820) (3,442,360) (3,927,500)Recharges (3,290,520) (4,013,400) (4,260,370)Total Income (179,212,790) (180,048,830) (185,231,960)Net Expenditure 29,134,900 30,239,920 31,791,850

RESOURCES

Revenue Budget 2008-09

Revenue Budget 2008-09

RESOURCES

40

Cost Centre 2007/8 Original Estimate

2007/8 Current Estimate

2008/9 Original Estimate

£ £ £ 10756 Strategic Development Unit 389,850 391,430 395,750Strategic Development 389,850 391,430 395,750

Subjective Analysis 2007/8 Original Estimate

2007/8 Current Estimate

2008/9 Original Estimate

£ £ £ExpenditureEmployees 461,310 327,890 336,050Transport 5,520 5,520 5,660Supplies and Services 10,880 145,880 146,070Capital Depreciation Charges 78,950 78,950 78,950Total Expenditure 556,660 558,240 566,730IncomeOther Grants, Reimbursements and Contributions (166,810) (166,810) (170,980)Total Income (166,810) (166,810) (170,980)Net Expenditure 389,850 391,430 395,750

Revenue Budget 2008-09

STRATEGIC DEVELOPMENT

41

Appendix C

PRUDENTIAL INDICATORS Introduction The prudential indicators for the forthcoming and following years must be set before the beginning of the forthcoming year. The Prudential Code financial indicators and Treasury Management Strategy & Annual Plan requiring Council consideration are set out below. 2007/08 Budget & Rent Setting Reports 1. The ratio of financing costs to net revenue stream shows the estimated annual

revenue costs of borrowing (net interest payable on debt and the minimum revenue provision for repaying the debt) as a proportion of annual income from government grants and council taxpayers. The estimates of financing costs set out below include current commitments and the proposals in this budget report. Ratio of financing costs to net revenue stream

2006/07 Actual

%

2007/08 Estimate

%

2008/09 Estimate

%

2009/10 Estimate

%

2010/11 Estimate

% Non-HRA 0.45 -1.61 0.25 1.87 2.87HRA 51.00 34.00 42.00 44.00 43.00

2. The incremental impact of capital investment decisions reflects the estimated

annual increase/decrease in Band D Council Tax as a result of new proposed capital spending. As set out in the main report, all the Council’s borrowing is deemed to be prudential as the Government’s notional supported borrowing allocations do not result in additional revenue support grant.

The estimate of the incremental impact of capital investment decisions proposed in this budget report, over and above capital investment decisions that have previously been made by the Council and full year effects are set out below. The reduction over time reflects future assumptions on interest rates, revenue efficiency savings, and funding of the capital programme through other means, e.g. capital receipts.

Incremental Impact on Band D Council Tax 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 £1.45 £0.79 -£4.17

3. In considering its programme for capital investment, the Council is required by the

Prudential Code to have regard to:-

• affordability (implications for Council Tax) • prudence and sustainability (implications for external borrowing) • value for money (option appraisal) • stewardship of assets (asset management planning) • service objectives (the Corporate Plan) • practicality (achievability of the forward plan).

1

A key measure of affordability is the incremental impact on the Council Tax, and the Council could consider different options for its capital investment programme in relation to their differential impact on the Council Tax.

4. Estimates of the end of year Capital Financing Requirement (CFR) for the current and future years, and the actual CFR at 31 March 2007 are set out below.

Capital Financing Requirement (CFR)

2006/07 £000

Actual

2007/08 £000

Estimate

2008/09 £000

Estimate

2009/10 £000

Estimate

2010/11 £000

Estimate Non-HRA 85,396 97,401 142,812 160,758 151,354HRA 41,821 53,036 80,327 97,149 101,143

CFR presented to Council in March 2007 Non-HRA 99,173 122,367 125,413 133,056 HRA 42,536 58,596 74,794 91,402

5. The CFR is a measure of the underlying need to borrow for capital purposes, so

excludes capital expenditure financed by capital receipts, capital grants, revenue contributions and third party contributions. In accordance with statutory guidance, the Council does not associate borrowing with particular items or types of expenditure in the accounts, although when approving new projects and other variations to the capital programme the likely impact on the overall level of prudential (unsupported) borrowing is advised to Members. Financial Regulations allow the Chief Finance Officer to amend the funding of capital projects if this is to the council’s overall financial benefit.

6. The Council has an integrated Treasury Management Strategy (TMS) and has

adopted the CIPFA Code of Practice for Treasury Management in the Public Services. Barnet has at any point in time a number of cashflows both positive and negative, and manages its overall treasury position in accordance with the approved TMS and treasury practices. In daily cash management, no distinction is made between revenue cash and capital cash, as external borrowing arises as a consequence of all the financial transactions and not simply those arising from capital spending. In contrast, the CFR reflects the underlying need to borrow for capital purposes.

7. The CIPFA Prudential Code for Capital Finance in Local Authorities includes the

following as a key indicator of prudence:– In order to ensure that over the medium term net borrowing will only be for a capital purpose, the local authority should ensure that net external borrowing does not, except in the short term, exceed the total of capital financing requirement in the preceding year plus the estimates of any additional capital financing requirement for the current and next two financial years.

Net borrowing refers to the council’s total external borrowing. The Chief Finance

Officer reports that the council had no difficulty meeting this requirement in 2006/07, and that there are no difficulties envisaged over the term of the proposed capital programme. This view takes into account current commitments, existing plans, and the proposals in this budget report.

2

8. The actual capital expenditure that was incurred in 2006/07 and the estimates of capital expenditure to be incurred for the current and future years that are recommended for approval are as follows:-

Capital programme 2006/07

Actual 2007/08 Estimate

2008/09 Estimate

2009/10 Estimate

2010/11 Estimate

£000 £000 £000 £000 £000 Adult Social Services 0 405 0 0 0Central Expenses 1,147 2,000 3,960 1,500 0Children’s Services 8,053 9,499 55,341 45,029 21,864Environment & Transport 8,097 18,819 12,477 1,435 40Governance 0 243 25 0 0Housing General Fund 6,142 8,420 7,379 2,694 3,347Planning & Environmental Protection 0 8 0 0 0Resources 6,100 10,079 11,071 1,570 2,070Strategic Development 113 0 374 0 0General Fund 29,652 49,473 90,627 52,228 27,321HRA 25,192 39,027 33,843 22,748 11,238Total Programme 54,844 88,500 124,470 74,976 38,559

9. External debt is defined in the Prudential Code as the sum of external borrowing and other long-term liabilities.

Cabinet is asked to recommended that Council approves the following Authorised Limits for its total external debt for the next three financial years – this being the statutory limit determined under Section 3(1) of the Local Government Act 2003 – and agrees the continuation of the previously agreed limit for the current year since no change to this is necessary.

Authorised limit for external debt

2007/08 £000

2008/09 £000

2009/10 £000

2010/11 £000

Borrowing 229,457 259,407 259,407 259,407Other long term liabilities1 90,000 90,000 90,000 90,000 319,457 349,407 349,407 349,407

The Council has decided to adopt as its Authorised Limit for 2008/09 and 2009/10

the calculated limit for 2010/11. By adopting this approach the Council will be able to take advantage of any falls in the interest rate market and take its future borrowing at the optimum time.

10. The prudential indicator for the authorised level of external debt is the means by

which the council will comply with the legislative requirement to determine and keep under review the amount it can afford to borrow for capital expenditure purposes. These Authorised Limits are consistent with the council’s current commitments, existing plans and proposals in this budget report for capital expenditure and financing, and with its approved treasury management policy statement and practices. Risk analysis and risk management strategies have been taken into account, as have estimates of the CFR cashflow requirements.

1 This represents headroom for additional borrowing to cover for risks like non-receipt of capital receipts,

housing subsidy, RSG etc.

3

11. Cabinet is asked to recommend that Council approve the following Operational Boundary for external debt:-

Operational Boundary for external debt

2007/08 £000

2008/09 £000

2009/10 £000

2010/11 £000

Borrowing 225,957 259,407 259,407 259,407Other long term liabilities 73,500 70,000 70,000 70,000Total 299,457 329,407 329,407 329,407

The proposed Operational Boundary for external debt is based on the same estimates as the Authorised Limits, but includes further headroom to allow for unusual cash movements. It represents a key management tool for in-year monitoring, and within it the figures for borrowing and other long term liabilities are separately identified.

12. The council’s external debt at 31 January 2008 was £215.5m. This is the position

at a single point in time, so is not directly comparable to the Authorised Limit or Operational Boundary.

2008/9 Treasury Management Strategy & Annual Plan 13. The council has adopted the CIPFA Code of Practice for Treasury Management in

the Public Services. 15. Cabinet is asked to recommend to Council to set an upper limit on its fixed

interest rate exposures for 2008/09, 2009/10 and 2010/11 of 100% of its net outstanding principal sums.

16. Cabinet is asked to recommend that the Council sets an upper limit on its

variable interest rate exposures for 2008/09, 2009/10 and 2010/11 of 30% of its net outstanding principal sums.

17. The above mean that the Chief Finance Officer will manage fixed interest rate

exposures within the range 70%-100%, and variable interest rate exposures within the range 0%-30%. This is a continuation of current practice and provides flexibility to take advantage of any favourable movements in interest rates.

18. Cabinet is asked to recommend to Council that it approve and set upper and

lower limits for the maturity structure of borrowings as set out in the table below.

Fixed Rate Maturity Borrowing Upper limit Lower limit Under 12 months 20% 0% 12 months and within 24 months 25% 0% 24 months and within 5 years 30% 0% 5 years and within 10 years 50% 0% 10 years and above 95% 25%

The table shows the upper and lower limits of projected borrowing that is fixed rate maturing in each period as a percentage of total projected borrowing that is fixed rate at the start of the period:

4

19. Cabinet is asked to recommend to Council that it approve an upper limit of 30% of borrowing maturing in any one year.

20. As at 31 January 2008 the council’s debt maturity profile was:-

Debt Maturity Profile £m % of Total Borrowing Under 12 months 5.00 2.32 12 months and within 24 months 3.50 1.62 24 months and within 5 years 58.00 26.92 5 years and within 10 years 10.00 4.64 10 years and above 139.00 64.50 Total 215.50 100.00

Monitoring 21. The Prudential Code requires that performance is monitored against all forward

looking indicators and that significant deviations from expectations are highlighted. This monitoring is undertaken as part of capital monitoring reported to Cabinet Resources Committee.

5

Appendix DFinancial Forward Plan 2008-2013

2008/9 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13

£m £m £m £m £m

Base budget (net of AEF, DSG & Collection Fund) 141.60 147.19 152.34 157.67 163.19

Pay awards & inflation (excluding Schools Budget) 5.93 6.17 6.31 6.46 6.59

Full year effects 1.21 (0.03) 0.00 0.00 0.00

Efficiencies (7.87) (1.97) (1.34) 0.00 0.00

Pressures (inc. reductions in specific grants) 12.38 7.46 1.31 (0.09) 0.00

Reductions (2.39) (0.50) 0.00 0.00 0.00

Collection Fund adjustments (1.61) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Formula Grant (provisional 3-year settlement) (2.06) (1.89) (2.61) 0.00 0.00

147.19 156.43 156.01 164.04 169.78

Contingency for new budget pressures 0.00 5.00 5.00 5.00 5.00

Budget reductions to be identified 0.00 (9.09) (3.34) (5.85) (5.88)

Call on Collection Fund 147.190 152.34 157.67 163.19 168.90

Council Tax (Band D) £1,082.75 £1,120.61 £1,159.82 £1,200.42 £1,242.42

Medium Term Financial Strategy 3.49% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50% 3.50%

Appendix E

CAPPING REGIME The Local Government Act 1999 provides the Secretary of State with powers in respect to capping. These operate at two levels - nomination (equivalent to a 'yellow card') and designation (equivalent to a 'red card'). The process is complicated and the following explanations provide an outline. The full legal interpretation of the Act is provided at the end of this Appendix. There are two routes with nomination: - i) the council is given a warning and told to rein in its spending or it will be capped in a

future year. A' notional amount' is set, to be used as the basis for deciding future capping decisions;

ii) the council is told that it is being designated for the following year - e.g. its cap limit

in the current year is greater than its target amount. Although nomination is likely to be announced around May/June, councils will not find out the capping level for the following year until the local authority finance settlement in November/December. In year designation is similar to previous capping regimes. The Secretary of State sets a 'maximum amount' (cap) and a 'target'. Where the target maximum amount is different to the target, the council will be told the year by which it is expected to reduce its budget to the target amount. The current regime is more sophisticated and selective. The Secretary of State intends to take into account the cumulative effect of budget changes over several years,, a council's performance in the delivery of Best Value; local residents' views on the budget; and any award of Beacon status. Target amounts enable budget reductions to the cap limit over several years. There is no indication that more detailed guidance on the use of these powers will be issued in the foreseeable future. Councils must rely on various sources of information to guess what budget levels will help them avoid capping. Such information includes principles used in previous years and statements by the Secretary of State;. The Secretary of State is under no duty to divulge or consult on the criteria adopted in deciding which authorities to designate. Authorities that are either designated or nominated may make representations to the Secretary of State. There is also the option to challenge in the courts, but from previous experience councils have found that the House of Lords has viewed the question of whether a budget requirement is excessive to be a matter of political judgement for the Secretary of State, which is not bound by an authority's own view of expenditure needs. Legal Interpretation - Capping is abolished and replaced with a new process by Part II of the Local Government Act 1999 (the Act). Section 30 of the Act provides that Schedule 1 to the Act shall apply in relation to the limitation of council tax and precepts as regards the financial year beginning with 1st April 2000 and subsequent financial years. The Schedule inserted as chapter 1VA (that is sections 52A to 52Z) into the Local Government Finance Act 1992. In outline the provisions on budget as referred to at paragraph 8.22 of the Committee report is as follows: -

The Secretary Of State is given power to designate or nominate an authority if in his opinion the amount calculated by the authority as its budget requirement for a financial year (the year under consideration) is excessive (section 52B&D). The question whether an amount is excessive must be decided in accordance with a set of principles determined by the Secretary of State. One of the principles must include a comparison between the amount calculated by the authority as its budget for the year under consideration and the amount calculated as its budget for a financial year falling before the year under consideration - with 1998 to 1999 being the first year which can be taken into account (section 52B(4). The Secretary of State may provide an alternative "notional amount" which in his opinion should be used as the basis of any comparison in place of the amount calculated by the authority as its budget requirement for a financial year falling before the year under consideration (section 52C). Designation - The Secretary of State shall notify the authority amongst others of (1) the designation (2) the amount which he proposes should be the maximum for the amount calculated by the authority as its budget requirement for the year; (3) the target amount for the year, that is, the maximum amount which he proposes the authority could calculate as its budget requirement for the year without the amount calculated being excessive (section52E). Nomination - The Secretary of State shall notify an authority in writing amongst others of (1) the nomination; (2) the amount which he would have proposed as the target amount for the year under consideration if he had designated the authority as regards that year. The Secretary of State then has to decide whether or not to designate the authority after the nomination. Designation after Nomination - If the Secretary of State follows this route, then he shall (a) designate the authority as regards the financial year immediately following the year under consideration; (b) determine an amount which he proposes should be the maximum for the amount calculated by the authority as its budget for the year as regards which the designation is made; (c) determine the target amount for the year as regards which the designation is made (section52M). The Secretary of State will of course notify the authority of a-c. No Designation after Nomination - In this event, the Secretary of State shall determine an amount, which he proposes should be the "notional amount" calculated by the authority as its budget requirement for the year under consideration. He shall notify the authority of that amount and the amount which he would have proposed as the maximum for the amount calculated by the authority as its budget requirement for the year under consideration if he had designated the authority as regards that year (section 52N). An authority designated or nominated may make representations to the Secretary of State.

CABINET MEETING 21 FEBRUARY 2008 Agenda Item 5 – Budget and Corporate Plan

Appendix F

Comments from Overview & Scrutiny Committees and Budget Headlines

All the Overview and Scrutiny Committees (except Cabinet OSC) have now considered the relevant budget headlines. Arising from their deliberations and discussions with officers and Cabinet Members, no comments have been formally referred for Cabinet’s consideration.

CONTRACTS APPENDIX G

Department Contract NameOlder Adults Nursing Care & EMI Beds Provision Block and Spots

Older Adults Residential Care Provision Spot Contracts

Telecare Alarm Service

Older Adults Provision of Voluntary Sector Service

Learning Disabilities, Provision of Transition Services

Learning Disability Voluntary Sector Funding (LDDF)

Learning Disabilities - s256 contracts (transferred from PCT)

Learning Disabilities, Residential Care and Supported Living provision

Mental Health Recovery Services, Residential and Accommodation Provision

Mental Health Voluntary Sector Provision

Mental Health Supported Living provision

Physical Disabilities, Employment Based Services Provision

Physical Disabilities, Residential and Accommodation Provision

Supporting People Programme - 95 services operating under contracts with 62 provider organisations

Open Access Floating Support

Assertive Outreach Service

Domestic Violence Floating Support

Domiciliary Homecare Contract

Barnet Play Association

Barnet Mencap

IPOP

Barnet Play Association

Barnet Community Transport

Central Buying Consortium

Radio-Frequency Identification

Library Management System

Chipping Barnet Library Furniture

South Friern Library Fit-Out

Roundabout sponsorship

Provision of Design Services

Consultation Portal

Place Shaping Survey

Citizens Panel

Newsletter software

CCTV Maintenance contract.

CCTV Installation 2008/09

Systems Based Auditing

Internal Audit of Schools

FMS external assessment of schools

Adult Social Services

Communications and Consultation

Children's Service

Corporate Governance

1

CONTRACTS APPENDIX G

Department Contract Name

Recycling Services

Fleet Procurement with Maintenance

Service agreement for P&D machines

Parking Process Management Service

Greenspace Security

Building and WC cleansing contract

Gas Under 25,000 Therms

Countryside Rural Footpaths

Countryside Rural Bridleways

Supply of Wheeled Bins (Plastic)

Supply of Wheeled Bins (Metal)

Refuse Sacks

Litter Bin Sacks

Litter Bins

Electricity Under 100kW

Tree maintenance. Hendon.

Large Mechanical & Electrical Projects

Consultants (Design and partnering)

Framework Contracts (planned works)

Finchley and Golders Green Tree Management

Tree works Chipping Barnet Area

Electricity over 100KW

Gas Over 25,000 Therms

A41/Aerodrome Road Junction improvements Scheme

CCTV Installation Contract

CCTV Fibre Optic Cabling Installation Contract with BT

Street Lighting Installation Works Contract

Parking back office software

Pay & Display Machines

Enterprise support services - Greenspace Security

Enterprise cleansing services

Growth Area Fund Round 3 (4 projects)

Minor projects for Schools / Children's Service (Approx. 20 - 30 projects )

Operational Buildings - condition / measured surveys (Approx. 20 sites)

Asset Database

Copthall Roof Renewal

Woodhouse Road Conversion

South Friern Library Fit-Out (Building)

Environment & Transport

2

CONTRACTS APPENDIX G

Department Contract Name

Housing Removals & Storage

Temporary Accommodation on Provision 2009/12

EDRM Back scanning of HNR files

EDRM HNR Web-hosting

Replacement of Housing Management System

Housing Advice

North London Warmth & Comfort Scheme

North London Warmth & Comfort Scheme

North London Decent Homes Contract

Scanning of new and historic planning applications and other PEPS

City of London Veterinary Service

Supporting U

Environmental Research Group, Kings College London

WoB - Furniture (Library)

WoB - Lift

WoB - M & E

WoB - IT

WoB - Glazing

WoB - Security (CCTV etc)

WoB - Construction

WoB - Landscaping

WoB - Storage

WoB - Site Clearance

WoB - M & E Installation

WoB - Furniture (CAS)

WoB - RFID

WoB - Fees (e.g. architects, CDM, legal, professional)

Non-Life Insurance - Household Buildings for Leasehold Properties

Non-Life Insurance - Property and Pecuniary Risks

Electricity - Under 100 KW

Heating Oil

Photocopier Equipment

Clothing Contract

Security Services Contract

Printers Approved list

Translation & Interpretation Service

Manage Ned Service - Mobile Telecoms

NLBP Electricity Supply Contract

NLBP Gas Supply Contract

Planning and Environmental Protection

Resources

3

CONTRACTS APPENDIX G

Department Contract Name

Multi - Function Devices

Nuisance Vehicle Contract

GIS System

Social Service System Managed Service

Barnet Online Website Managed Service

Revenues and Benefits System Support

Barnet Online Web form hosting

Cheque production system support

Education MIS system support

BACS validation system

Income management and electronic payment

Legal Case management system support

Committee Papers system support

Environmental Health System Support

Planning & Environmental Protection System Support

Non SAP systems managed services

Desktop monitoring and deployment system

XDAs email synchronisation service

Managed service

Shared Data Centre Project

Corporate Internet Security

Corporate Email Security

Corporate Desktop and Server Anti Virus

Microsoft Enterprise Agreement

BT / IDN - Landline Telecoms

IDN - Tel Rental and Calls

Web Site Security Certificates

Server Hardware Maintenance

Hendon Town Hall Refurbishment

Barnet House - Council chamber

Mill Hill - Strong Room

Hendon Town Hall - Adaptations

NNDR rates Review Council Properties

Hoarding Advertisement

Property Management (HRA)

Property Management (Commercial Portfolio)

Asset Valuations

Employee Benefits

Actuarial Services

Pension fund custodians

Pension fund advisors

Resources (continued)

4

CONTRACTS APPENDIX G

Department Contract Name

Barnet Bond Phase 2

Barnet Bond QS Costs Work

Strategic Development

5

AGENDA ITEM: 6 Page nos. 25 – 28 (plus separate appendix)

Meeting eeting Cabinet Cabinet Date Date 21 February 2008 21 February 2008 Subject Subject Improving Communications in Barnet -

Interpreting and Translation Policy Improving Communications in Barnet - Interpreting and Translation Policy

Report of Report of Leader of the Council Leader of the Council Summary Summary This corporate policy attached is aimed at setting common

principles and a standard approach whilst allowing services to meet local requirements. It is important that translation and interpretation is seen as part of communicating effectively with residents and service users.

This corporate policy attached is aimed at setting common principles and a standard approach whilst allowing services to meet local requirements. It is important that translation and interpretation is seen as part of communicating effectively with residents and service users.

Officer Contributors Jill Stansfield – Executive Director for Communities Julie Pal – Strategic Equalities Adviser

Status (public or exempt) Public

Wards affected All

Enclosures Appendix 1 Draft translation and interpretation policy (circulated separately)

For decision by Cabinet

Function of Executive

Reason for urgency / exemption from call-in (if appropriate)

N/A

Contact for further information: Julie Pal – 020 8359 7263 or julie.pal@barnet.gov.uk

25

1. RECOMMENDATIONS 1.1 That the introduction of a new Interpreting and Translation policy be

approved as set out in appendix to this report. 1.2 That services be directed to adopt the common principles and

approaches outlined in the policy and apply them to local requirements. 2. RELEVANT PREVIOUS DECISIONS 2.1 Full Council 26 October 2004 – closure of the corporate translation unit 2.2 Outsourcing of the Translation and Interpreting Service 12 November 2004

under delegated powers. 2.3 The award of contract for the Provision of Translation and Interpretation

Service 24 February 2005 under delegated powers. 3. CORPORATE PRIORITIES AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 3.1 This policy sets out the council’s approach to communicating with our

residents and service users in the most accessible and effective way. The policy will support the council in delivering on the ‘More Choice, Better Value” and ‘Stong and Healthy’ priorities of the Corporate Plan.

3.2 Implementing the Interpreting and Translation Policy relies upon an understanding of the following:

• Corporate Plan

• Barnet’s Equality Scheme

• Customer Access Strategy

• Procurement Strategy 3.3 Directorates and services will be expected to apply this corporate document to

reflect their local priorities which incorporate their customer needs. 4. RISK MANAGEMENT ISSUES 4.1 Failure to communicate effectively with different types of users and recipients

of council services may place the council at risk of non-compliance of a range of legislation relating to the principle of accessing public goods and services which is embedded in a number of Acts of Parliament.

4.2 Communicating effectively in English is believed by Government to contribute to the creation of strong and cohesive communities who have shared values and experiences as defined by the Commission on Integration and Cohesion. This policy is part of Barnet’s local response to the Commission’s findings of promoting cohesion and integration locally and reflects Government guidance for local authorities on translation of publications.

5. EQUALITIES AND DIVERSITY ISSUES 5.1 This policy builds on the work the council has been undertaking to ensure that

equalities and diversity is integral to all that it does.

26

5.2 The setting of a corporate framework with a placing of responsibilities on local delivery arrangements ensures that services will be targeted and prioritised to reach those people in most need of accessing public services.

5.3 The model reflects that used in Barnet’s Equality Scheme 2007/08-2010/11 6. FINANCIAL, STAFFING, ICT AND PROPERTY IMPLICATIONS 6.1 All expenditure to be met from existing resources. 7. LEGAL ISSUES 7.1 None 8. CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS 8.1 Constitution, Part 3 – Responsibility for Functions, Section 3 –

Responsibilities of the Executive 9 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 9.1 The Government recently issued guidance on the translation of publications

which emphasises the importance of the universal use of English, and recommends that translations should only be used in a selective and targeted way, be part of a wider communication strategy for communities, and act as a stepping stone to encourage people to learn English. Barnet’s draft policy is consistent with this guidance.

9.2 The Commission on Integration and Inclusion found that there were five main pro-active reasons for provision of translation and interpretation. Although their report is about language translation, the principles also apply for people with low levels of literacy and for disabled people:-

• to ensure non English speaking residents are able to access essential services, e.g. education, safety campaigns.

• to ensure people can take part in the demcratic process, for example registering to vote.

• to support local community groups, or intermediaries working directly with new migrants or non English speaking communities.

• to enable people to function effectively as citizens in society and to be able to get along with others by ensuring that they understand the rules, eg parking controls, rubbish collection.

• to ensure compliance with legislation and ensure that no one is disadvantaged because of their inability to communciate verbally, or non verbally.

9.3 The Interpreting and Translation Policy sets out the council’s approach to communicating with our residents and service users by providing checklists of when to use interpreters and translate documents based on the guiding principles outlined by the Commission.

27

9.4 The policy refers to the council’s customers who: o Do not have English as their first language o Have a sensory impairment o Have a learning difficulty o Have low levels of literacy

9.5 The policy will not lead to an increase in the number of translated documents it produces but encourages directorates to consider how it can best communicate with their customers by targeting resources efficiently.

9.6 The policy includes a checklist to assist officers to make decisions of when to decide to translate a policy. Officers are advised that it is preferable to translate easy-read summaries of documents.

9.7 The council will no longer include a language card at the end of its documents.

10. LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS 10.1 Improving communications in Barnet – Interpreting and Translation Policy 10.2 Guidance for local authorities on translation of publications- DCLG December

2007 Legal: MAM CFO: CM

28

Interpreting and Translation Policy

Improving Communications in BarnetFebruary 2008

1. Introduction 4

2. Definitions 5

3. Communicating with Barnet residents 6

4. Making information accessible 7

5. Accessing interpreting and translation services 8

6. Best Practice – Interpreting 9

7. Confidentiality 10

8. Training 11

9. Monitoring 11

10. Translations 11

11. The legal duty 13

Appendix 1 Checklist for using an interpreter 15

Appendix 2 Checklist for deciding when to translate a document 17

Appendix 3 Provision of translation and interpretation service process flowchart 18

Appendix 4 Languages spoken in schools in 2006 20

Appendix 5 Summary of language requests 22

Contents

Appendices

4 Interpreting and Translation Policy Improving Communications in Barnet

Introduction1. This is Barnet Council’s corporate Interpreting and Translation Policy. It sets 1.1.

out the council’s approach to communicating with our residents and service

users in the most accessible and effective way. The policy will support

the council in delivering on the ‘More Choice, Better Value” priority of the

Corporate Plan.

This policy framework sets out a selective approach to delivery based on 1.2.

people’s needs and the council’s core objectives.

Implementing the Interpreting and Translation Policy relies upon an 1.3.

understanding of the following:

Corporate Plan •

Barnet’s Equality Scheme•

Customer Access Strategy •

Procurement Strategy.•

The policy also links to other key strategies within the council including:1.4.

Communications Strategy•

Consultation and Community Engagement Strategy.•

Services will be expected to apply this corporate document to reflect 1.5.

their local priorities which incorporate their customer needs. Adult Social

Services already have their own local written policy on translation and

interpretation because of its importance in their area. This requirement may

also apply for other services.

The policy reflects the guidance recently published by the Department for 1.6.

Communities and Local Government1.

1 Guidance for local authorities on translation and publications – DCLG (December 2007)

5Interpreting and Translation Policy Improving Communications in Barnet

Definitions2.

For the purposes of this document the following distinctions are made 2.1.

between ‘translation’ and ‘interpreting’.

Translation2.2. refers to the transferring of ideas expressed in writing from one

language to another.

Interpreting2.3. refers to the transfer of ideas expressed orally (or through the

use of gestures or signs).

The term ‘customer’2.4. 2 is used as an inclusive term to embrace any

stakeholder or group who interacts with council services. The routes

through which a customer will interact with the council and its services will

be called ‘access channels’. The four main types of access channel are:

electronic access to customer services•

telephone•

face to face •

written correspondence.•

This policy and procedure refers to the council’s customers who: 2.5.

do not have English as their first language•

have a sensory impairment •

have a learning difficulty•

have low levels of literacy.•

2 Customer Access Str ategy June 2006

6 Interpreting and Translation Policy Improving Communications in Barnet

The Commission on Integration and Cohesion2.6. 3 found that there were five

main pro-active reasons for provision of translation and interpretation.

Although their report is about language translation, the principles also apply

for people with low levels of literacy and for disabled people:

ensure non English speaking residents are able to access essential •

services, e.g. education, safety campaigns

ensure people can take part in the demcratic process, for example •

registering to vote

support local community groups, or intermediaries working directly with •

new migrants or non English speaking communities

enable people to function effectively as citizens in society and to be able •

to get along with others by ensuring that they understand the rules, eg

parking controls, rubbish collection

ensure compliance with legislation and ensure that no one is •

disadvantaged because of their inability to communicate verbally,

or non verbally.

Communicating with Barnet residents3. The rich diversity of Barnet is reflected in the make up of its 338,000 3.1.

residents. Just over a quarter of the population belong to a minority ethnic

community - the largest of which are Indian and Black African. Barnet

is also home to the largest number of Chinese residents of any London

borough and the highest proportion of Jewish residents in the country.

In 2006 our primary school children spoke 133 languages at home in 3.2.

addition to English. Somali is the second most popular language spoken in

primary schools, but Gujarati is the language most spoken in the borough

after English.4 This illustrates the changing nature of Barnet.

3 ‘Our shared futures’, Commission for Intergration and Cohesion, June 2007

4 PLASC 2007 Data – Appendix 4

7Interpreting and Translation Policy Improving Communications in Barnet

In addition we have almost 50,000 residents with a long-term illness, health 3.3.

problem or disability that affects their daily activities or the work that they

can do5. Of these nearly 6,000 people in Barnet are visually impaired,

7,000 are hard of hearing and 7,000 have a learning difficulty.

This picture of Barnet will change as our regeneration and redevelopment 3.4.

programmes increase Barnet’s diversity and size.

Although over half of the borough’s working age population are educated 3.5.

to first degree level, there are 70,000 who have no qualifications or hold a

level 1 qualification (which is the equivalent of GCSE Grade D/E).6

The most popular languages requested for interpretation for 2005/06 were 3.6.

Pashto, Farsi, Somali, Arabic and French.7

The most popular languages requested for document translation for 3.7.

2005/06 were Farsi, Pashto, Polish, Arabic, Somali and Turkish.8

Making information accessible4. Making information accessible is vital to making people feel that they 4.1.

understand what their council is doing, and that it is relevant and effective.

The Office for Disability Issues9 has suggested the following principles as a

guide to making information accessible. Emphasis has been placed on the

needs of disabled people, but can be applied across all communities and

groups of people:

ensure disabled people are involved from the start•

provide information through a range of channels and formats•

ensure the information meets users’ needs•

clearly signpost other services•5 Barnet Primary Care Trust (2005) Improving Health and Well-being in Barnet update

6 The Labour Market Requireme nts of growth in the London Borough of Barnet (January 2006

7 Prime Productions Summary Statement – Appendix 5

8 Prime Productions Summary Statement – Appendix 3

9 Five Principles for producing better information for disabled people - Office for Disability Issues (February 2007)

8 Interpreting and Translation Policy Improving Communications in Barnet

always define responsibility for the information provision.•

In addition to these guiding principles there are style layouts which enhance 4.2.

the legibility of printed text with visual impairments or those who lack

confidence in reading. The ‘See it Right’ booklet produced by the Royal

National Institute for the Blind provides practical advice on designing,

producing and planning accessible information.

Accessing interpreting 5. and translation servicesThe council has an interpreting and translation service contractor which can 5.1.

provide:

face to face interpretation• 10

real-time telephone interpretation•

document translation (languages, large print, braille or audio tape)•

A Process Flowchart is available in Appendix 3 explaining how to access 5.2.

the service.

Adult Social Services Learning Disability Team together with voluntary sector 5.3.

partners can help produce accessible information for people with learning

difficulties.

The corporate Web Team can advise on accessibility guidelines for Barnet 5.4.

Online and Barnet Work.

Barnet 5.5. Sign Language Interpreting Service (SLIS) provides communication

support to Barnet residents who use British Sign Language as their first

language as well as Sign Supported English interpreters, Deaf blind Manual,

Lip speakers and Speech to Text Reporters (Palantypists). Services are free

to Barnet residents.

10 Including BSL/lip reading

9Interpreting and Translation Policy Improving Communications in Barnet

Budgetary responsibilities for interpreting and translation have been 5.6.

devolved to service areas since 2005 with costs being met through

revenue budgets.

Best Practice – Interpreting6.

Customer’s choice

A knowledge of the English language is essential to participating fully 6.1.

in society. However, we recognise that not all our customers will speak

English with confidence. To enable them to access the correct service,

pictorial information about services will be displayed and supported by

a translation card.

If this is not successful, an interpreter will be offered through our approved 6.2.

contractor. Customers must be asked if they have a preferred individual

interpreter provided by the contractor. If possible, the contractor will be

asked to provide the preferred interpreter.

To assist this process, where possible a customer’s need for an interpreter 6.3.

should be arranged in advance. For services including Adults, Children,

Housing and Benefits details of preferred communication should be

recorded on local data bases.

When it is not possible to pre-arrange an interpreter, services can access 6.4.

real time interpreters by telephone using the Council’s approved contractor.

However, this is very expensive.

As our customers are helped to learn English, we accept that the need for 6.5.

interpretation services will reduce over time.

10 Interpreting and Translation Policy Improving Communications in Barnet

Using relatives and friends as interpreters

Relatives and friends should not be used as interpreters to either access 6.6.

council services or to provide information to professionals (such as social

workers, teachers, welfare benefit staff).

There may be a conflict of interest between the informal interpreter and 6.7.

the customer. A professional interpreter should be used from the council’s

approved contractor.

Use of children

Children under 18 should not be used as interpreters by council staff. 6.8.

This is particularly important for the council to adhere to in its face-to face

interactions with the public.

The only exception is to gain basic information during an emergency.6.9.

Use of multilingual staff

The council does not encourage multilingual staff to use these skills as they 6.10.

go about their daily work, unless they have been specifically recruited for

their linguistic skills.

However, the council accepts that there are occasions where staff have 6.11.

offered to use their communication skills to assist customers, when they

approach the council.

Documenting use of interpreters

A record must be kept of requests for interpreters and the council’s 6.12.

response. This is important in the event of complaints, compliments and

comments.

11Interpreting and Translation Policy Improving Communications in Barnet

Confidentiality 7. All interpreters used are expected to adhere to the confidentiality agreement 7.1.

contained within the terms of the procurement contract.

Training8.

Providers

Training for the professional interpreters is the responsibility of the approved 8.1.

provider.

Staff

Staff who use interpreters have attended briefing sessions from the 8.2.

approved provider about the new processes. Guidance on using

interpreters is included in Appendix 1

Monitoring9. Monitoring arrangements are currently managed through the Strategic 9.1.

Procurement Team.

Half-yearly summaries of the most popular languages requested to the 9.2.

council’s approved provider for interpretation and translation will be posted

on the council’s intranet.

Translations10. Documents will no longer have a language card attached.10.1.

Decisions on translation must be linked to an assessment of how and why 10.2.

information is being communicated. In the first instance information should

12 Interpreting and Translation Policy Improving Communications in Barnet

be set out in an accessible style, as 16% of adults in England cannot read

or write with confidence. Public documents, including reports to members

can be checked for their readability to ensure the information they contain is

easily understood by clicking on the following link:

www.literacytrust.org.uk/campaign/SMOG.html11.

The Consultation and Communications Team can also check documents to 10.3.

advise on the use of plain English.

Commission for Integration and Cohesion

The Commission for Integration and Cohesion in “Our Shared Futures” sets 10.4.

out four contextual points that local agencies should be encouraged to bear

in mind when thinking about translating printed documents into English:

There is no legal reason for all materials to be translated. The Race •

Relations Act (1976) says that all parts of the community should

have access to services and although that might involve translation, it

does not always have to. The Human Rights Act (1998) only requires

translation if someone is arrested or charged with a criminal offence.

Translations can never be a substitute for learning English. The •

Commission is concerned about undermining a wider drive to improve

English skills in all communities.

Material should only be translated where it is perceived to build •

integration and cohesion. The Commission state that where settled

black and minority ethnic populations are still relying on community

languages, then translations from English are likely to extend their

reliance on their mother tongue. Where new communities have arrived

in a local area then clearly they need initial information in appropriate

languages. Local authorities need to judge what is best in their areas.

Translation should be considered in the context of communications •

to all communities. The Commission state that it is important to keep

communications channels open between community groups living in

11 Public document written in English should be aimed at people with a reading age of under 11 y ears old to enable the widest possible group of readers to be included.

13Interpreting and Translation Policy Improving Communications in Barnet

the same area. Materials that are just in one language can be alienating

to those who do not speak that language and therefore local partners

should consider how they use translated materials to underline their

even handed approach to all communities.

A checklist of when to translate documents is available in Appendix 2 and 10.5.

is based on guidance in “Our Shared Futures”.

Communicating with disabled people

The availability of alternative formats must also be considered for disabled 10.6.

people. For example large print; audiotape/CD transcription, Braille

transcription and sign language. In so doing it is necessary to bear in mind

the reason for conveying the information and how best to obtain responses.

Pictograms are helpful and good examples of their use are adverts for

the Choice based lettings scheme and the Learning Disability Partnership

Board Strategy – ‘A small plan to make a big difference’.

The legal duty11. The Race Relations Amendment Act 2000 and the Disability Discrimination 11.1.

Act 2005 place a duty on the Council to promote race equality and

disability equality respectively.

The Race Relations Amendment Act states that it is unlawful for a provider 11.2.

of services to discriminate racially against people using those services. The

Act also states that councils have a specific duty to promote equality of

opportunity and good relations between people of different groups.

The Disability Discrimination Act places similar obligations upon the Council. 11.3.

In addition the Disability Discrimination Act (part 3) 1995 requires any

organisation providing goods and services to the public to make reasonable

adjustments in the delivery of goods and services so that disabled people

have equal right of access.

15Interpreting and Translation Policy Improving Communications in Barnet

Appendix 1 Checklist for using an interpreter

The guidance listed is similar for using a community language interpreter or a sign

language interpreter.

Before the interviewUsing an interview lengthens the interview time – remember to book the 1.

interpreter for a longer time – usually a 1 hour interview will take 1 ½ hours

with an interpreter.

Check the preferred language, dialect and gender of the interpreter being 2.

booked.

Anticipate if you require the Interpreter to have specialist knowledge.3.

Brief the interviewer before the interview. 4.

Use the interpreter’s cultural knowledge to guide you on etiquette.5.

During the interviewIntroduce yourself and the interpreter. Ask the interpreter to explain their 1.

role.

Explain to the customer that all information shared will be confidential to 2.

everyone in the room.

Place the customer at the centre of the interview, keeping eye contact with 3.

them.

Use plain English, avoid jargon and speak in short sentences.4.

Recap if anything is not clearly understood.5.

If you are concerned about what is taking place between the interpreter and 6.

the customer, stop the conversation and ask the interpreter to explain what

is going on.

Make sure the interview finishes on time.7.

16 Interpreting and Translation Policy Improving Communications in Barnet

After the InterviewDebrief the interpreter. Give positive feedback on what went well. Ask for 1.

clarification for any difficulties you experienced.

Do not ask the interpreter for their opinion of the case. 2.

Sign the interpreter’s time sheet. Make a note of the time.3.

17Interpreting and Translation Policy Improving Communications in Barnet

Appendix 2 Checklist for deciding when to translate a document1

Is it essential to translate this document?1.

Who is the target audience? What is the evidence of need or that people

would otherwise be disadvantaged? Does it include people for whom

English is not their first language? Which languages do they speak?

Could the information be more effectively shared by visiting community

organisations or using community advocates? Is there a statutory duty

for providing written information in translated format?

If you need to translate, does it need to be the whole document?2.

Are you confident that people across communities have the literacy skills

to understand the document? Would it be better to translate an easy-

read version of the document? Would it be better to wait until you receive

requests for translations rather than translate proactively? Should you

produce a summary for translation?

How accurate is the data you have on the languages needed for 3.

translation?

Do you know the language needs of your customers? Are they different to

the borough’s language profile? Are the translation needs of your customers

different to the interpreting needs?

What is the cost/benefit analysis for this translation? 4.

What will happen to this material once translated? What is the potential

impact to the council of not translating documents? Will there be a change

in resident satisfaction ratings? Are there any anticipated risks to the council

such as reputation, quality of service delivery by not translating documents?

Have you explored whether other local agencies might already have 5.

these materials in translated form?

Have you networked with other local authorities to find out if they have

already translated this material? Are other partners such as the Police or the

Primary Care Trust translating similar documents?

1 Commission for Integration and Cohesion Our Shared Values’ Annex E 92007)

18In

terp

retin

g an

d Tr

ansl

atio

n P

olic

y Im

prov

ing

Com

mun

icat

ions

in B

arne

t

Tele

pho

ne in

terp

retin

gF

ace

to f

ace

inte

rpre

tatio

nD

ocu

men

t tr

ansl

atio

n

1

Whe

ther

the

cust

omer

is w

ith y

ou o

r you

inte

nd

to c

all t

he c

usto

mer

in th

e ne

ar fu

ture

the

first

ste

p is

to c

onta

ct:

Prim

e P

rodu

ctio

ns o

n 08

70 8

11 0

161

Whe

n yo

u ne

ed to

boo

k a

face

to fa

ce

inte

rpre

ter,

cont

act P

rime

Pro

duct

ions

to e

nqui

re

abou

t ava

ilabi

lity*

this

sho

uld

then

be

follo

wed

by

a bo

okin

g fo

rm w

hich

can

be

sent

ele

ctro

nica

lly

or b

y fa

x

*Rem

embe

r to

cla

rify

the

min

imum

can

cella

tion

perio

d.

Whe

n yo

u ne

ed a

lette

r or d

ocum

ent t

rans

late

d co

ntac

t Prim

e P

rodu

ctio

ns. Y

ou w

ill be

pro

vide

d w

ith a

forw

ardi

ng e

mai

l add

ress

for s

ubm

issi

on o

f th

e w

ork

to b

e tra

nsla

ted.

2

The

oper

ator

will

ask

you

for

your

:

Org

anis

atio

n na

me

Your

nam

e (in

itial

and

sur

nam

e)

Ple

ase

also

pro

vide

you

r pos

ition

.

The

lang

uage

you

requ

ire.

The

loca

tion

of y

our c

usto

mer

(inc

ludi

ng n

ame

and

tele

phon

e nu

mbe

r if y

ou in

tend

to c

all t

hem

)

The

book

ing

form

sho

uld

incl

ude

deta

ils o

f the

ap

poin

tmen

t inc

ludi

ng d

ate

and

time,

ant

icip

ated

du

ratio

n; th

e re

quire

d la

ngua

ge; v

enue

of t

he

appo

intm

ent;

coun

cil o

ffici

al o

rder

refe

renc

e nu

mbe

r; yo

ur n

ame,

title

and

tele

phon

e nu

mbe

r; in

terp

rete

r’s n

ame

(if k

now

n –

parti

cula

rly

impo

rtant

in c

ontin

uity

circ

umst

ance

s), h

ourly

co

st a

nd tr

avel

cos

t if n

ot in

clud

ed. T

he b

ooki

ng

form

sho

uld

be fo

rwar

ded

to th

e co

ntra

ctor

. W

ithou

t an

offic

ial S

AP

ord

er n

umbe

r the

ser

vice

m

ay n

ot b

e de

liver

ed

Forw

ard

in e

lect

roni

c fo

rmat

the

lette

r or

docu

men

t to

be tr

ansl

ated

, tog

ethe

r with

an

offic

ial o

rder

num

ber;

the

title

of t

he d

ocum

ent;

lang

uage

(s) r

equi

red;

you

r nam

e, ti

tle a

nd

tele

phon

e nu

mbe

r; w

heth

er y

ou re

quire

the

docu

men

t to

be h

eld

on fi

le fo

r fut

ure

wor

k; a

nd

cost

.

It is

impo

rtant

to b

e cl

ear o

f tra

nsla

tion

requ

irem

ents

at t

he p

oint

of o

rder

. Mak

e su

re

you

stat

e nu

mbe

r of w

ords

or s

ize

of d

ocum

ent

pape

r i.e

. A4

/A5/

leafl

et. U

rgen

t wor

k m

ust h

ave

auth

oris

ed s

ervi

ce a

rea

offic

er c

oncu

rrenc

e as

th

is w

ill in

cur h

ighe

r cos

ts.

With

out a

n of

ficia

l ord

er /

num

ber t

he s

ervi

ce

may

not

be

deliv

ered

3

You

will

be p

ut o

n ho

ld. A

ppro

x 2

- 3

min

utes

la

ter t

he o

pera

tor w

ill co

nnec

t you

to a

n in

terp

rete

r. M

ake

sure

you

take

a n

ote

of th

e in

terp

rete

r’s ID

num

ber a

nd /

or n

ame.

(Thi

s m

ay p

rove

ben

efici

al in

follo

w u

p ca

lls p

rovi

ding

co

ntin

uity

with

the

sam

e in

terp

rete

r)

The

inte

rpre

ter w

ill ar

rive

10 m

inut

es b

efor

e th

e st

art o

f the

inte

rvie

w. P

leas

e no

te -

inte

rpre

ters

ar

e no

t per

mitt

ed to

con

duct

inte

rvie

ws

and/

or e

nter

inte

rvie

w v

enue

with

out s

ervi

ce

repr

esen

tativ

e ac

com

pany

ing

them

.

The

elec

troni

c co

py o

f the

lette

r or d

ocum

ent

will

be re

turn

ed w

ithin

the

times

cale

spe

cifie

d at

po

int o

f ord

er.

It sh

ould

be

note

d th

at c

erta

in d

ocum

ents

/la

yout

s m

ay re

quire

ext

ende

d tim

esca

les,

thes

e sh

ould

be

clar

ified

at p

oint

of o

rder

.

App

endi

x 3

Pro

visi

on o

f tra

nsla

tion

and

inte

rpre

tatio

n se

rvic

e pr

oces

s flo

wch

art

4

Brie

f the

inte

rpre

ter

(e.g

. exp

lain

ba

ckgr

ound

who

, w

here

and

wha

t).

If th

e cu

stom

er h

as

calle

d yo

u: a

dvis

e th

e in

terp

rete

r wha

t pho

ne

set u

p yo

u ha

ve –

si

ngle

han

dset

/spe

aker

ph

one/

two

hand

sets

. A

sk th

em to

intro

duce

yo

u an

d th

emse

lves

. Fo

llow

this

with

you

r le

ad q

uest

ion.

If yo

u ar

e ca

lling

the

cust

omer

brie

f th

e in

terp

rete

r by

expl

aini

ng w

ho, w

here

an

d w

hat.

Adv

ise

them

that

Lan

guag

e Li

ne is

set

ting

up a

co

nfer

ence

cal

l for

you

. A

sk th

em to

intro

duce

yo

u an

d th

emse

lves

w

hen

the

clie

nt is

co

nnec

ted.

On

com

plet

ion

of th

e in

terv

iew

, you

will

be

prov

ided

with

a c

opy

of th

e tim

e sh

eet w

hich

the

serv

ice

repr

esen

tativ

e ha

s to

sig

n.

This

act

s as

con

firm

atio

n of

rece

ipt o

f the

in

terp

reta

tion

serv

ice.

Pay

men

t for

the

serv

ice

will

be p

roce

ssed

th

roug

h th

e us

ual b

illing

pro

cess

. The

ser

vice

w

ill be

qua

lity

chec

ked

with

the

com

mis

sion

ing

offic

er b

efor

e pa

ymen

t

5

The

oper

ator

will

conn

ect t

he c

usto

mer

.P

aym

ent f

or th

e se

rvic

e w

ill be

pro

cess

ed

thro

ugh

the

usua

l billi

ng p

roce

ss.

Ple

ase

note

– tr

ansl

atio

n of

mat

eria

l sub

ject

to

cor

pora

te b

rand

will

requ

ire in

put f

rom

the

Mar

ketin

g D

esig

n an

d P

rint S

ervi

ce. T

his

shou

ld

be in

corp

orat

ed in

to th

e pr

epar

atio

n tim

e of

th

e do

cum

ent b

efor

e re

leas

ing

to c

ontra

ctor

. A

dec

isio

n m

ay b

e ap

prop

riate

to c

omm

issi

on

the

trans

latio

n th

en s

et th

is w

ithin

the

corp

orat

e br

and

thro

ugh

the

Prin

t Ser

vice

. C

onta

ct R

ache

l Tan

sley

on

020

8359

779

5

6

Pro

ceed

with

the

conv

ersa

tion.

The

inte

rpre

ter

will

rela

y th

e in

form

atio

n be

twee

n yo

u.P

rime

Pro

duct

ions

Tel:

020

8571

146

6

Fax:

020

857

1 46

91

Emai

l: in

fo@

prim

epro

duct

ions

.org

.uk

Tele

pho

ne t

rans

latio

n is

exp

ensi

ve!

Whe

n re

quire

d it

shou

ld b

e us

ed to

iden

tify

the

prob

lem

prio

r to

mak

ing

an a

ppoi

ntm

ent f

or a

fa

ce-t

o-fa

ce in

terv

iew

. C

alls

sho

uld

last

no

long

er th

an 1

0 m

inut

es

Bar

net S

ervi

ce A

rea

Bud

get h

olde

r:

Prim

e P

rodu

ctio

ns

Acc

ount

s M

anag

er

Ms

Bha

vna

Par

mar

7

End

the

call

by s

ayin

g: “

I hav

e al

l the

info

rmat

ion

I ne

ed. I

s th

ere

anyt

hing

els

e yo

u w

ould

like

to a

s m

e?”

Sho

uld

you

cons

ider

ther

e w

ill be

a n

eed

for a

furth

er in

terp

rete

d ca

ll yo

u sh

ould

indi

cate

th

is ra

ther

than

sta

te y

ou h

ave

all t

he in

form

atio

n yo

u re

quire

.

8

Pay

men

t for

the

serv

ice

will

be p

roce

ssed

th

roug

h th

e us

ual b

illing

pro

cess

. Qua

lity

chec

k re

ports

will

be m

ade

avai

labl

e to

you

r man

ager

w

ith re

spon

sibi

lity

for m

onito

ring

the

trans

latio

n an

d in

terp

reta

tion

cont

ract

20 Interpreting and Translation Policy Improving Communications in Barnet

Count of Children’s Service Total

Language Name

English 15409

Information not obtained 1111

Somali 835

Gujarati 785

Other Language 711

Arabic 646

Farsi/Persian (Any Other) 526

Urdu 501

Portuguese 446

Polish 420

French 398

Greek 382

Turkish 372

Albanian/Shqip 342

Chinese 333

Japanese 294

Tamil 281

Hebrew 262

Bengali 237

Spanish 192

Pashto/Pakhto 184

Yoruba 135

Panjabi 129

Hindi 117

Italian 113

Russian 113

Persian/Farsi 83

Tagalog 77

German 70

Kurdish 54

Count of Children’s Service Total

Sinhala 43

Igbo 42

Lingala 40

Dutch/Flemish 30

Korean 27

Bulgarian 26

Caribbean Creole English 26

Lithuanian 26

Serbian/Croatian/Bosnian 26

Romanian 25

Chinese (Cantonese) 24

Dari Persian 22

Akan (Twi/Asante) 20

Filipino 20

Indonesian/Bahasa Indonesia 18

Shona 18

Slovak 18

Akan/Twi-Fante 15

Akan (Fante) 14

Luganda 14

Nepali 14

Swahili/Kiswahili 13

Hungarian 12

Swedish 12

Amharic 11

Croatian 11

Malay (Any Other) 10

Serbian 10

Swahili (Brava/Mwiini) 10

Tigrinya 10

Ukrainian 10

Appendix 4 Languages spoken in schools in 2006

PLASC 2007 – primary and nursery pupils attending schools maintained by Barnet

Council. There are 133 first languages other than English spoken in their homes.

21Interpreting and Translation Policy Improving Communications in Barnet

Count of Children’s Service Total

Refused 9

Caribbean Creole French 8

Danish 8

Vietnamese 8

Chinese (Mandarin/Putonghua) 7

Ga 7

Kikuyu/Gikuyu 7

Konkani 7

Latvian 7

Romanian (Romania) 7

Thai 7

Arabic (Any Other) 6

Bemba 6

Greek (Cyprus) 6

Malayalam 6

Armenian 5

Bosnian 5

Krio 5

Tagalog/Filipino 5

Wolof 5

Arabic (Morocco) 4

Czech 4

Macedonian 4

Malay/Indonesian 4

Marathi 4

Norwegian 4

Portuguese (Any Other) 4

Afrikaans 3

Arabic (Iraq) 3

Gaelic/Irish 3

Hausa 3

Kinyarwanda 3

Mauritian/Seychelles Creole 3

Sindhi 3

Swazi/Siswati 3

Arabic (Algeria) 2

Catalan 2

Count of Children’s Service Total

Chechen 2

Dinka/Jieng 2

Fijian 2

Romani (International) 3

Romany/English Romanes 3

Finnish 2

Herero 2

Kirundi 2

Welsh/Cymraeg 2

Zulu 2

Assyrian/Aramaic 1

Bengali (Sylheti) 1

Burmese/Myanma 1

Cebuano/Sugbuanon 1

Chinese (Any Other) 1

Dyula/Jula 1

Efik-Ibibio 1

Fula/Fulfulde-Pulaar 1

Georgian 1

Greek (Any Other) 1

Guarani 1

Ilokano 1

Kanuri 1

Kashmiri 1

Lozi/Silozi 1

Maltese 1

Maya (Any) 1

Mongolian (Khalkha) 1

Nzema 1

Rajasthani/Marwari 1

Slovenian 1

Telugu 1

Tibetan 1

Tulu 1

Yiddish 1

Grand Total 26426

22 Interpreting and Translation Policy Improving Communications in Barnet

Appendix 5 Summary of language requests

Interpreting

Language 2004-2005 2005-2006

Farsi 20 14

Somali 18 11

Portuguese 10 7

Arabic 10 6

Pashto 8 24

French 7 5

Spanish 3 5

Kurdish 3 8

Others 21 20

0%

6%

12%

18%

24%

30%

Farsi Somali Portuguese Arabic Pashto French Spanish Kurdish Others

20%

8%

5%5%

24%

6%7%

11%

14%

20%21%

3%3%

7%8%

10%10%

18%

20%

Interpreting Chart

2004-2005 2005-2006

Language 2004-2005 2005-2006

Farsi 20% 14%

Somali 18% 11%

Portuguese 10% 7%

Arabic 10% 6%

Pashto 8% 24%

French 7% 5%

Spanish 3% 5%

Kurdish 3% 8%

Others 21% 20%

Source: Prime Productions June 2007

23Interpreting and Translation Policy Improving Communications in Barnet

Translation

Language 2004-2005 2005-2006

Farsi 35 23

Somali 15 9

Pashto 4 20

Turkish 7 9

Polish 7 12

Kurdish 4 5

Arabic 8 7

French 5 3

Others 15 11

0%

8%

16%

24%

32%

40%

Farsi Somali Pashto Turkish Polish Kurdish Arabic French Others

11%

3%

7%5%

12%

9%

20%

9%

23%

15%

5%7%

8%

5%4%

7%7%

4%

15%

35%

Translations Chart

2004-2005 2005-2006

Language 2004-2005 2005-2006

Farsi 35% 23%

Somali 15% 9%

Pashto 4% 20%

Turkish 7% 9%

Polish 7% 12%

Kurdish 4% 5%

Arabic 8% 7%

French 5% 3%

Others 15% 11%

Source: Prime Productions June 2007

AGENDA ITEM: 6 Page nos. 29 – 48

Meeting Cabinet Briefing Date 31 January 2008 Subject Street Trading Report of Cabinet Member for Community Engagement

and Community Safety Summary This report considers the introduction of a Street Trading Policy

within the London Borough Barnet to regulate the street scene especially since the introduction of the smoking ban in July 2007.

Officer Contributors Paul Lamb, Community Protection Group Manager Dorne Kanareck, Deputy Director of Corporate Governance Jill Stansfield, Executive Director for Communities

Status (public or exempt) Public

Wards affected All

Enclosures Appendix 1 – Comparison of street trading fees Appendix 2 – Proposed charges and worked examples Appendix 3 - Legal provisions and definitions Appendix 4 - Existing designated pitches

For decision by Cabinet

Function of Executive

Reason for urgency / exemption from call-in (if appropriate)

N/A

Contact for further information: Paul Lamb, Community Protection Group Manager, 0208 359 7491

29

1. RECOMMENDATIONS 1.1 That the introduction of a new Street Trading Policy be approved. 1.2 That the 1988 Public Works Committee decisions (as referred to in

paragraph 2.1 of the report) be revoked except that a total ban on advertising boards on the footway be retained.

1.3 That the existing designated pitches across the borough be retained. 1.4 That a temporary licence regime is adopted. 1.5 That a revised fee structure as set out in Appendix 2 be approved. 2. RELEVANT PREVIOUS DECISIONS 2.1 The last time that street trading policy was formally addressed by the Council

was by the former Public Works Committee on 26 April 1988 which resolved: That the current procedure for dealing with obstructions to the highway

caused by the display of goods, etc be dealt with according to the de minimis criteria as modified and set out in Appendix A to the report of the Chief Officers concerned be approved. 1. That it be recommended to the Keep Barnet Tidy Group the promotion

through local Chambers of Commerce of this policy and seeking active support of its members in dealing with these environmental issues.

2. That the appropriate Chief Officers be instructed to publicise the Council’s policy and take such action as is required to secure compliance. Appendix A to the report is summarised as follows: • Goods for sale on footway – minimum footway clearance of 2m for

pedestrians and not more than 10% of the footway taken up. • Advertising boards (A-boards) – A total ban on the placing of A boards

on the footway. • Tables and chairs - minimum footway clearance of 2m for pedestrians

and not more than 10% of the footway taken up. • Shop blinds – raise blinds or not use them including side extensions if

de minimis criteria exceeded. 3. CORPORATE PRIORITIES AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 3.1 Regulating street trading supports the corporate priorities of Clean, Green and Safe and a Successful Suburb. 3.2 A suburban town centre strategy is currently being developed. The

development of a street trading policy will need to integrate with the strategic vision for town centres within the Borough. The policy would also need to integrate with other relevant strategies and policies, including the Local Development Framework and the Clean Borough Strategy.

3.2 Street trading can contribute to the economic, cultural, environmental and social well being of the borough. Such trading however must balance the

30

needs and concerns of residents, businesses and other interested parties to ensure the character of an area is enhanced in a safe and responsible way.

4. RISK MANAGEMENT ISSUES 4.1 The introduction of a new street trading regime may be received poorly by

some traders who are currently using the public highway as additional commercial space at no cost. Co-ordinated and sustained implementation encompassing education, promotion and enforcement will be required.

4.2 The current approach to regulating street trading has created a two tier structure. Designated pitches and temporary market traders are regulated, whilst businesses placing goods for sale, tables and chairs and others engaged in relevant trading activity are not. The introduction of a comprehensive street trading policy will ensure all street trading activity is regulated within a clear, fair and consistent framework.

4.3 The public nuisance that can be created by unregulated street trading may adversely affect people’s perceptions of Barnet as a place, increasing fear of crime and anti social behaviour and hence reduce the quality of life for residents, businesses and visitors. Premises placing tables and chairs on the footway since the introduction of the smoking ban has increased considerably and continues to do so. Failure to adopt a street trading policy will result in further expansion of unlicensed activity across the borough. This may result in an unsafe, unregulated and an unattractive local environment.

4.4 Adopting an equitable fee structure is essential to ensure that only income, sufficient to cover the cost of administering the regime, is received. If charges are set too high compliance may be discouraged and the Council open to legal challenge.

5. EQUALITIES AND DIVERSITY ISSUES 5.1 The Council has a duty to assert and protect the rights of the public to the use

and enjoyment of any public highway within the borough. Street trading can have a significant impact upon the public highway in terms of obstruction, clutter and nuisance. Unregulated, the placement of items such as tables and chairs and displays of goods can represent a serious hazard to vulnerable members of the community. For example those members of the community who have a disability, especially visual impairment, or a problem with mobility.

5.2 All applications will be treated on their individual merits and in accordance with the London Local Authorities Act 1990 (as amended). This will include required governance structures and processes including a process where any person aggrieved by a decision can appeal.

5.3 Enforcement will be in accordance with the principles of the Enforcement Concordat and will be reviewed when the Government publishes a revised Regulator’s Compliance Code in 2008. A regulatory impact assessment will be performed.

5.4 An equalities impact assessment will be performed.

31

6. FINANCIAL, STAFFING, ICT AND PROPERTY IMPLICATIONS 6.1 Section 32 of the London Local Authorities Act 1990 allows fees to be set for

the grant, renewal and variation of a licence. The Council may only recover from licence holders the reasonable costs incurred to administer the regime.

6.2 Attached as Appendix 1 is a schedule detailing the fee regime of a selection of London local authorities compared against LB Barnet’s current fees. From the examples it can be seen that a variety of different methods are applied to the setting of fees. The income received by other boroughs also varies with Westminster receiving approximately £2.7m per annum and Haringey £160K. Barnet’s current annual income is approximately £10,000 which does not cover the cost of administration and regulation.

6.3 LB Barnet’s street trading charges have not changed since 1994. The Retail Price Index has increased 43.4% between 1994 and 2007. This rate of increase has been applied to the existing lower charge of 92p per square metre per day. It is proposed that the resultant charge of £1.32 per square metre per day be applied for both temporary and designated pitches to ensure equity. A daily rate related to the size of the area traded from is a fair and proportionate method of charging.

6.4 To encourage compliance and implement an equitable and simple charging method for tables and chairs and displays of goods, a standard charge is proposed based upon a scale of space occupied. Appendix 2 sets out the proposed street trading charges. Photographs are included that provide some costed examples.

6.5 Before determining charges the Council must consult with current licence holders or a body representative of them and publish a notice in a local newspaper allowing for 28 days to receive representations. The Council would then need to consider any representations received.

6.6 To implement, regulate and administer a street trading regime no additional staff will be required. Existing staff within the Community Protection Group will be able to re-focus their work to incorporate street trading regulation.

6.7 The regulation of a street trading regime will be self financing. However there are a number of variables involved in the projection of costs and probable take up is not known at this time. Fees and charges would therefore need to be reviewed after six months to establish a financial baseline and annually to ensure we comply with Section 32 of the 1990 Act. Following annual review, fees and charges will need to be set to ensure that the costs of administering the regime are met.

6.8 A cost tracking process will be implemented to capture all relevant costs attributable to street trading regulation. Additional costs identified, such as an apportionment for supplemental street cleaning and support from other service areas, such as CCTV for example, will need to be factored in and fees and charges reviewed accordingly.

6.9 Street trading is a function included within the current ICT application of M3 (Northgate). This function is incorporated within the ICT development and implementation of the new Plantech software system which is planned to be operational May 2008. The project is in the capital programme approved at

32

Council in March 2007 and changes required will be contained within that budget. No additional office space will be required.

7. LEGAL ISSUES 7.1 Attached as Appendix 3 is information explaining the legal provisions and

definitions relevant to street trading. Anyone engaged in street trading (with a few exceptions) is required to hold a street trading licence. Conditions may be attached to a licence in order to address potential problems such as obstruction, nuisance, litter and unsightliness.

7.2 The Traffic Management Act 2004 places a duty on the LB Barnet as a local traffic authority to manage the road network with a view to achieving the expeditious movement of traffic. The control of street trading will contribute to regulating the use of the public highway and avoid disruption. The Director of Environment and Transport will be consulted to establish the

conditions necessary to meet this duty. For example street trading conditions will include the requirement to maintain a minimum of 2m unobstructed width of footway which may be up to 4m unobstructed width in highly trafficked areas such as town centres.

7.3 Planning consent may be required where a formal change of use constitutes development. Applicants for a street trading licence will be advised to obtain

all other relevant regulatory consents including planning permission. 7.4 The Health Act 2006 introduced requirements relating to smoke free

premises, places and vehicles. The smoking ban provisions were subsequently introduced in England from July 2007. This has impacted upon the use of the public highway.

8. CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS 8.1 The Constitution (Responsibility for Functions Part 3) sets out the terms of

reference of the Cabinet Member for Community Safety and Community Engagement portfolio. This includes dealing with community safety in its widest sense being responsible for trading standards and licensing as falls within the remit of the Executive.

9 BACKGROUND INFORMATION 9.1 The 1988 Public Works Committee decision defines the ability of the Council

to regulate the street scene. Currently almost all street trading in the borough is unlicensed and therefore being conducted illegally. Section 32 of the London Local Authorities Act 1990 states ‘it shall be unlawful for any person to engage in street trading…. unless that person is authorised to do so by a street trading licence or a temporary licence’. In recent years there has been a noticeable increase in the number of premises placing tables and chairs, advertising boards and displays on the footway.

33

9.2 Introduction of a new street trading policy will allow for effective regulation of the street scene and enable the Council to manage any problems that may arise. In future traders whose activities fall within the scope of the London Local Authorities Act 1990 street trading provisions, would no longer have automatic right to use the pavement. All applications will be considered on merit. Impact of the Smoking Ban

9.3 Implementation of the smoking ban since July 2007 has significantly increased the number of tables and chairs being placed on the public highway by a variety of premises including public houses, cafes, restaurants and coffee shops. This proliferation has had a substantial impact upon the public highway. Typical problems experienced include obstruction of pavements, causing inconvenience and in some cases danger to other street users and nuisance such as noise, litter and disorder.

9.4 Anecdotal evidence from the introduction of the smoking ban in other areas, such as the Republic of Ireland, indicates that smoking related litter increased following implementation. Anecdotal evidence from Barnet’s town keeper and cleansing service indicates this to be the case within LB Barnet. The cost of additional street cleaning can be factored into the licence fee. Alternatively conditions can be attached to licences to make businesses responsible for clearing litter emanating from their premise and licensed area.

9.5 There have been incidents of businesses sequestering public highway by placing barriers and ropes around displays and tables and chairs. One premise, for example, erected an extended shop front structure on the public highway in order to provide a smoking facility. Groups of people gathering outside premises to smoke within such defined areas and around tables and chairs not only constitute an obstruction but can also be intimidating, impacting upon people’s sense of security and contribute to an increase in the fear of crime.

9.6 Some businesses placing tables and chairs, ropes and barriers on the public highway are licensed premises. Not all premise licences contain conditions prohibiting alcohol from being taken outside the premise for consumption. Incidents of customers consuming alcohol on the public highway have increased, which can lead to nuisance and alcohol related disorder as well as contribute to increased levels of insecurity as stated above. Street trading licences could control the consumption of alcohol on the public highway by attaching relevant conditions to the licence.

9.7 The presence of activity defined as street trading on the public highway can contribute to increased levels of noise nuisance causing disturbance to residents and other neighbouring businesses.

9.8 Introduction of a street trading regime will allow for the effective control of the street scene. The Council will be able to attach relevant conditions to ensure good practice and control issues such as nuisance, crime and disorder. Where there is non compliance licences can be revoked and appropriate enforcement action taken.

34

Current Street Trading Licensing 9.4 There are only eight surviving licensed trading pitches in Barnet which are

detailed in Appendix 4. These are historic agreements which are deemed designated and have the legal status of designated pitches as detailed in Appendix 3. It is therefore recommended these pitches are continued as designated in accordance with the 1990 Act. In addition the occasional temporary licensing of street markets has been authorised. Adoption of a street trading policy will ensure consistent and fair regulation and administration across the borough.

10. LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS 10.1 London Local Authorities Act 1990 10.2 Fee extracts from other London Local Authorities. Legal: JEL CFO: CM

35

Appendix 1 Examples of Street Trading Fees Trading Type

Barnet Haringey Islington Bromley Westminster

Tables and chairs

None £31 fee + £10 per square metre per week

£350 fee + £40 per chair up to 12 £20 per chair thereafter

£821 per 6 months

Per chair: 1- 4 = £325 5- 9 = £500 10-16= £900 17-23=£1,300 24-36=£1,750 37+ =£2,400 + appln fee and fee for after 7pm.

Shop front displays

None £39 fee + £12 per square metre per week

N/A £821 per 6 months

N/A

Casual Stalls / Markets

£1.10 per sq metre per day

£39 fee + £17 per stall per 2 days

£8 - £17 per stall per day depending on location

£30 per day per stall (charities free)

Per day £19.44 Mon-Thurs £36.20 Friday £43.83 Saturday £47.64 Sunday

Designated pitches

92p per square metre per day

£66 fee + £1,404 per annum (6 days or more per week) £884 per annum for 2 days trading

£30 fee + £26 - £77 per week depending on pitch size

£2,190 per annum

Per day £10.61 Mon – Thurs £20.16 Friday £24.40 Saturday £26.52 Sunday

36

Appendix 2 – Proposed fees and worked examples Markets and Stalls Daily Per Square metre

charge Designated Sites £1.32 Temporary Licence £1.32 Tables and Chairs and Displays of Goods (per six months) Up to 3 sq metres 3 – 10 sq metres 10 – 15 sq metres Above 15 sq

metres (max 25 sq metres)

£100 £300 £600 £900 7am – 11pm only. Periods May – October and November – April. Comparison of Worked Examples – calculated daily rate Barnet

Proposed

H’gey Islington Bromley Westminster (at lowest rate)

Designated Pitch (x1 stall)

£6.75 £8.50 £12.50 £30.00 £10.61

Up to 5 sq m’s for display / tables and chairs

£1.65 (max £4.95 for greater than 15 sq.m’s)

£8.55 N/A £4.51 N/A

Average Temp Market

£475 £204 £300 £720 £466.56

Examples of Street Trading Activity Tables and Chairs and A boards

Location: Whetstone High Road N20 Area taken up: 7.6 sq.m. o/s Coffee Culture (note was up to 15 sq.m. during summer time with barriers put out) 10.8 sq. m. o/s Costa Coffee (note that area was up to 15 sq.m. during summer time with barriers evident) Area Proposed charge = £300 – Coffee Culture per six months Area Proposed charge = £600 – Costa Coffee per six months (Costa Coffee could easily reduce applicable charge by reducing area below 10 sq.m’s) A boards would not be allowed.

Tables and Chairs and A boards

Location: Whetstone High Road N20 Area taken up = 3.84 sq.m Area Proposed charge = £300 per six months A boards would not be allowed.

Tables and Chairs and Display of Goods at one location

Location: Golders Green Road, NW11

rea taken up = 23 sq.m.

rea proposed charge = £900 per six months.

ikely display of goods would not be licensed as the premise is a bakery.

board would not be allowed.

A A L A

Tables and Chairs and A boards with bike stands within 1.5m

ocation = High Road N2

rge = £600 per six months.

irs would be reduced due to proximity f bike stands.

L Area = 10.5 sq.m. Area Proposed cha A boards would not be allowed. Tables and chao

Goods on footway

Location: Golders Green Road NW11

rea taken up = 8.54 sq.m.

rea Proposed charge = £300 per six months. may be an issue.

A AProximity of telephone kiosk A board would not be allowed.

Goods on footway and tables and chairs and A board

Location: 128 Florists , 130 Ale House , 132 Restaurant - High Road N2

rea taken up: 1.5 sq.m. Florists, 9 sq.m. Ale House, 9 sq.m. Restaurant A Area proposed charge = £100 Florist and £300 others per six months. A board would not be allowed.

Goods on footway

Location: High Road, Barnet

rea Taken Up: 9.2 sq.m

per six months.

ed due to footfall at location requiring more than 2m bstructed width of footway (approx. 1.5m unobstructed width available as above).

A Area Proposed Charge = £300 Likely area would be reduco

Display of Goods

Location: Burnt Oak Broadway, Second Hand Furniture Shop

rea: Over 15 sq.m

significantly reduced due to location, footfall and nuisance reated.

A Area Proposed Charge: £900 per six months Likely area would bec

Display of Goods

Location: High Road N12 Area: 7.2 sq.m

rea Proposed Charge = £300 per six months

onsidering the footfall within the area and proximity of display board and lamp ipated that the display would be reduced significantly.

A Ccolumn it is antic A board would not be allowed.

Designated Pitch

Location: 732 – 734 High Road N12 – three pitches.

urrent Charge = £2,772 per annum

roposed Charge = £3,975 per annum

C P

Appendix 3 Legislative provisions and definitions London Local Authorities Act 1990 (as amended) Street trading can be regulated by the London Local Authorities Act 1990 (as amended). The Act defines Street Trading as: ‘the selling or exposing or the offering for sale of any article (including a living thing) or the supplying or offering to supply any service in a street for gain or reward.’ This includes;

• Stalls (including farmers and other speciality markets) • Displays of goods (including fruit and veg displays, cars for sale and

hardware) • Tables and chairs (with or without service) • Flower sellers

Anyone engaged in street trading must hold a street trading licence with the exception of:

• Trading as a peddler under licence from a Police Authority • A market trader operating at a licensed market venue • A news vendor selling only newspapers and periodicals

Advertising boards do not come within licensable street trading activity. Considering the proliferation of A boards, the nuisance created and adverse impact upon the local environment, it is recommended they are not licensed or allowed to be placed upon the public highway. The definition of a street within the Act includes any area which is within 7 metres of any road or footway, which the public have access to without payment. A business can trade without a licence on their private forecourt if the trading is related to the purpose of that business and takes place during normal trading hours. If a business sub-lets its private forecourt and the subsequent trade is within 7 metres of a road or footway then a licence is required. Licences under the 1990 Act can be issued in two ways:

• Permanent licences Streets have to be designated. A selection of streets can be designated or a resolution passed to designate every street in the borough. No streets within Barnet are designated. Only eight sites across the borough are deemed designated by virtue of agreements preceding the introduction of the London Local Authorities Act 1990. There is a rigorous procedure to go through to designate streets, make regulations prescribing standard conditions and set fees, including consultation with third parties.

24

Once a street is designated, the council would have to consider every application received and can only refuse a licence on specified grounds subject to right of appeal to the courts. A formal governance structure would be required. There would be renewal and succession rights conferred. Permanent licences would be issued up to a three year period.

• Temporary Licences

No formal designation of a street required. Licences can be issued for periods up to 6 months, allowing for greater freedom to take decisions at the council’s discretion and allow for seasonality, especially with regard to tables and chairs. Licences issued would not carry renewal and succession rights. A temporary licence regime would not require such a formal governance structure and any appeals could be considered by the relevant Chief Officer with a final right to be heard by the Licensing Committee conferred. The extent of consultation could be limited to the setting of fees as required by Section 32 of the Act.

Conditions may be attached to licences and generally would be imposed to address potential problems such as obstruction. Standard conditions will need to be included in a policy document to avoid any potential challenge in the courts. Enforcement The London Local Authorities Act 1990 creates the offences of;

• Street trading in a street which is not a licence street • Street trading in a street without the authority of a street trading or temporary

licence. • Resisting or obstructing an officer • Making a false statement on an application • Contravening a licence condition

The maximum fine on conviction for the offences above is £1,000 in each case. The London Local Authorities Act 2004 introduced a fixed penalty regime as an alternative to prosecution. Penalty levels are: Offence Penalty Unlicensed trading £150 Failure to produce licence £100 Resisting an officer £250 Making a false statement £125 Licence contravention £100 Officers also have the power to seize goods for evidential purposes (including perishable goods since September 2007) if they have reasonable grounds for suspecting a person is trading without a licence.

25

The Council can also revoke licences after they have been granted for a variety of reasons such as non payment of fees, not enough space in the street, trading of goods or services that are not approved, failure to provide receptacles for refuse and litter and misconduct. Alternatively the Council could vary a licence and attach additional conditions instead of revoking it. Fees and Charges Fees can be set for the grant, renewal and variation of a licence. The 1990 Act does not stipulate fees as these should be set individually on a cost recovery basis. The Council cannot make a profit and may only recover from license holders the costs incurred to administer the regime. Costs include:

• Removal and disposal of waste • Additional street cleansing costs • Administrative costs • Enforcement costs.

Highways Act 1980 section 115 E - K Section 115E – K of the Highways Act 1980 gives a Local Authority the power to grant to a person permission to erect and use a facility, including A boards, displays of goods and tables and chairs on a walkway, impose conditions and levy a reasonable charge for administration of the licence. However the charge can only include administration costs and cannot include additional costs incurred for enforcement, cleansing and disposal of waste. The application process can be complex and requires a formal governance structure.

26

Appendix 4 Designated Pitches

Location Type Trading Days and meterage

Annual Charge (92p per sq.m)

Proposed Charge (£1.32 per sq.m based upon 43.4% RPI increase 1994 - 2007)

732 High Road N12

Flowers Wed – Sun (Jan –Nov) Sat – Sun (Dec) 3.75 sq.m

£930 £1,333

636 – 652 High Road N12

Flowers Wed – Fri / Sat (4) 1.9 sq.m

£363 £521

734 High Road N12 (2 pitches)

Fruit and Veg

Mon – Sun (7) 5.5 sq.m

£1,842 £2,642

Willow Walk J/W High Road N2

Flowers Fri – Sun / bank holidays 3.75 sq.m

£558 £800

Craven House, High Road N2

Flowers Sat / Sun / bank holidays 3.9 sq.m

£394 £565

Watling Avenue O/s Tube Station

News Vendors

Mon – Sun (7) 4.1 sq.m

£1,385 £1,986

23 Golders Green Road NW11

Flowers Mon – Sat (6) 1.3 sq.m

£373 £535

TOTAL

£5,853

£8,382

48

AGENDA ITEM: 8 Page nos. 49 – 97

Meeting Cabinet Date 21 February 2008 Subject Supplementary Planning Documents on

Contributions to Education and Contributions to Library Services

Report of Cabinet Member for Planning and Environmental Protection

Summary These supplementary planning documents, which elaborate on policies in the Unitary Development Plan, describe how the system of Section 106 contributions will operate to fund schools and library facilities. The documents have been subject to public consultation. Once approved by the Cabinet, they will form part of Barnet’s Local Development Framework, which will be replace the Unitary Development Plan.

Officer Contributors • Stewart Murray, Director of Planning and Environmental Protection

• Eshan Karunatilleka, LDF Programme Manager Status (Public or Exempt) Public Wards Affected All Enclosures • Appendix A – Supplementary Planning Document on

Contributions to Education • Appendix B – Supplementary Planning Document on

Contributions to Library Services • Appendix C – Summary of responses received about

educational contributions during the public consultation

For Decision by Cabinet Function of Executive Reason for urgency /exemption from call-in

Not applicable

Contact for further information:

Ros Ward, Planning Policy Manager, ros.ward@barnet.gov.uk, Tel. 020 8359 4657 Eshan Karunatilleka, LDF Programme Manager, Tel. 020 8359 6096

1. RECOMMENDATIONS 1.1 That supplementary planning documents (SPDs) on Contributions to Education from

Development and Contributions to Library Services from Development be approved for adoption and publication.

1.2 That the Adopted SPDs are approved for development control purposes of being supplementary planning guidance documents and material considerations in the determination of planning applications by the local planning authority.

2. RELEVANT PREVIOUS DECISIONS 2.1 The Unitary Development Plan was approved by Council on 12 April 2006 and formally

adopted on 18 May 2006. It will remain in effect (“saved”) for at least three years until it is replaced by the Local Development Framework.

2.2 The revised 2007 Local Development Scheme was approved by Cabinet on 26 February 2007 (Decision Item 7), and is the project plan for the preparation of the Local Development Framework, including these supplementary planning documents (SPDs).

2.3 On 12 March 2007, the Director of Planning and Environmental Protection, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Planning and Environmental Protection, approved the draft SPDs and their sustainability appraisals for a six-week statutory consultation. The results of the consultation are now being reported to the Cabinet.

2.4 Cabinet approved the Library Strategy on 26 July 2007 (Decision Item 8) to establish a network of leading and local libraries in Barnet, while in tandem improving customer access.

3. CORPORATE PRIORITIES AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 3.1 The SPDs will contribute positively to corporate priorities, in particular ‘A Brighter Future for

Children and Young People’ and ‘A Successful Suburb’ by improving financial contributions to schools and learning centres and community facilities as Barnet grows and demands on such facilities from new development and population increase. The SPDs will assist by providing planning guidance to developers and planning customers on the Section 106 financial contributions towards education, schools development and centres of learning and community facilities, thereby assuring the provision of these important community services that are part of Barnet’s ‘social infrastructure’ as a growing borough.

3.2 These latest SPDs contribute to the Three Strands Approach of Protect, Enhance, Grow (PEG) by supporting investment in community and physical infrastructure in a growing ‘Opportunity Borough’ where significant new development is planned and where Section 106 contributions can assist enhancements to existing high quality suburbs and areas of regeneration and renewal.

3.3 An emerging Community Infrastructure Levy framework through Section 106 SPDs and guidance, as advocated in the Planning Bill currently going through Parliament, will assist the council in delivering the corporate priority of ‘More Choice, Better Value’ by providing additional financial means for community leadership, choice and higher quality services.

3.4 The Contributions to Education SPD supports the council’s priority for a ‘Bright Future for Children and Young People’, delivered through Barnet’s Children and Young People Plan. The plan sets out Barnet’s priorities to improve educational, health and other outcomes for children and young people. Ensuring that every child in Barnet has access to a good school and good quality early education is a key objective of the plan. In order for this to be the case in the context of a growing population, this SPD is vital to ensuring that the educational needs of future developments can be met and that sufficient school places are

50

provided. 3.5 The Contributions to Library Services SPD has been prepared to align with the council’s

recent Library Strategy. This will set-up a network of ‘leading’, multi-functional libraries across the borough that will contain other co-located council services, while maintaining the provision of basic services at the remaining ‘local’ libraries.

3.6 The SPDs are supported by the Unitary Development Plan planning policy framework and will form part of Barnet’s emerging Local Development Framework. Thus, importantly for development control purposes, they will be material considerations in assessing planning applications and help to ensure the delivery of successful and sustainable development.

4. RISK MANAGEMENT ISSUES 4.1 The preparation of Local Development Framework documents, including these two SPDs,

is important to ensure a robust planning policy and guidance framework as the borough grows rapidly and pressure on community facilities increases, without which there would not be sustainable development or successful suburbs.

4.2 The failure to prepare a robust, up to date policy framework to support community infrastructure investment through Section 106 contributions would result in the loss of financial resources to support much needed education and community infrastructure across a growing borough, with adverse impacts on the quality of services provided by the council to customers, parents and residents.

4.3 The production of such planning documents needs to accord with the council’s approved timetable laid out in the Local Development Scheme, and is subject to targets set out by Government. Failure to produce these statutory planning documents in a timely manner will result in poor performance against National Indicators and the potential loss of external funding, including the Housing and Planning Delivery Grant and Housing Growth Funding.

5. EQUALITIES AND DIVERSITY ISSUES 5.1 A robust and comprehensive community infrastructure levy framework supported by up-to-

date SPDs on Education and Library Services will assist the council’s equalities and diversity objectives to support improved access to schools, learning and education and community facilities to all sections of Barnet’s diverse communities. Increased S.106 levies and resources to support community infrastructure investment in a growing Barnet will help vulnerable people and all sections of our communities to have access to high quality services arising from new development.

5.2 The two SPDs have each been subject to a sustainability appraisal, the purpose of which is to assess the documents’ policies against a number of key social, environmental and economic objectives. An important part of the sustainability appraisal methodology is a consideration of the SPD’s impact on equality and diversity issues. These have been fully assessed and shown to have positive equality and diversity outcomes in social, environmental and economic terms, subject to continuing monitoring and review.

6. FINANCIAL, STAFFING, ICT AND PROPERTY IMPLICATIONS 6.1 The Government has recently dropped proposals for the Planning Gain Supplement to tax

development land uplift values. In its place, as a provision of the Planning Bill, it supports the alternative mechanism a ‘Community Infrastructure Levy’ through contributions or tariffs. Barnet is already well placed in this respect and has adopted a number of S.106 SPDs with a tariff-based approach, including an overarching Planning Obligations S.106 SPD in 2006 and Affordable Housing in 2007. These latest Education and Library Services SPDs provide

51

a major step forward towards covering a wider range of services with an up-to-date, tariff-based framework for vital infrastructure, including soft or community infrastructure such as schools and nurseries. This will reduce the impacts of new development on existing services and associated budgets.

6.2 The SPDs explicitly target the levying of financial contributions from new developments and planning applicants whilst seeking to make the process more efficient, comprehensive and robust. It is likely that in the medium-term, levels of Section 106 contributions that are raised from new development for schools, other education and community/library services will increase significantly as Barnet growth takes place and regeneration is delivered.

7. LEGAL ISSUES 7.1 The legislative framework permitting planning obligations originated with Section 106 of the

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (later substituted by Section 12 of the Planning and Compensation Act 1991). The emerging Planning Bill, likely to be passed by Parliament this summer, introduces the legal concept of the Community Infrastructure Levy and tariff based approach for new development.

7.2 Subject to approval by Cabinet, the SPDs will be formally adopted as Barnet Council planning guidance policy. Under Regulation 16 of the Town and Country Planning (England) Regulations 2004, any person aggrieved by either document can apply, within three months of its adoption, to the High Court for permission to seek a judicial review.

8. CONSTITUTIONAL POWERS 8.1 Under the Constitution, Part 3 (Responsibility for Functions) Section 3 (Responsibilities of

the Executive), the approval of LDF documents is a matter for the Cabinet.

9. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 9.1 As part of the emerging Local Development Framework, the council is in the process of

producing a suite of supplementary planning documents addressing various aspects of Section 106 policy. The Contributions to Education from Development SPD (Appendix A) and Contributions to Library Services from Development SPD (Appendix B) follow the adoption of an overarching SPD on Planning Obligations in September 2006 and an Affordable Housing SPD in February 2007. The purpose of the suite of supplementary planning documents is to lay out simple, clear policies and guidance about the council’s approach to Section 106 contributions, which supplement and elaborate upon the high-level policies contained in the Unitary Development Plan. This approach is advocated in the Planning Bill before Parliament for a Community Infrastructure Levy or tariff based system towards new development. This policy guidance framework will help to maximise planning financial and direct infrastructure contributions from S.106 agreements and new development which accrue to the council and the borough.

9.2 These latest SPDs have been produced in parallel and address closely related aspects of the Section 106 policy set out in the Adopted UDP and Government guidance. Contributions to Education updates and replaces previous supplementary planning guidance from 2000 on the same subject. Up to now, Barnet has not had any specific guidance concerning financial contributions towards libraries, and Contributions to Library Services will therefore close a gap in the policy and S.106 tariff-based framework.

9.3 The SPDs have been prepared to be clear and as straightforward as possible for property developers/applicants and members of the public to interpret and act upon. The approach taken has been to lay out, as far as possible, fixed values for the amounts of Section 106 contributions that will be required for schools and libraries as close as possible to a ‘tariff’

52

system. However, in the case of large developments, such as the regeneration of the council’s four priority housing estates, the council will continue to negotiate more comprehensive Section 106 framework contracts on large scale infrastructure requirements. Public Consultation

9.4 The draft SPDs, together with associated sustainability appraisals, have been the subject of a six-week public consultation between 12 March 2007 and 23 April 2007. This included local residents; councillors; community, residents amenity and environmental groups; developers; requisite agencies such as Natural England; Greater London Authority and the Government Office for London.

9.5 Five stakeholders made 31 representations about Contributions to Education, of which 19 were accepted and resulted in changes to the draft SPD. Details of the representations and changes to the SPD are contained in Appendix C of this report. .

9.6 One response has been received to the public consultation on Contributions to Library Services, from a Member of the Council, who made three separate points (‘representations’), all of which were essentially supportive of the document and therefore entailed no changes to the draft SPD:

• Firstly, that the council should take care to ensure that any increased levels of Section 106 funds for libraries in future did not ‘displace’ existing resources devoted to libraries;

• Secondly, that if existing libraries were moved or new locations became available for additional libraries, these buildings should be designed for maximum flexibility;

• Thirdly, where new library buildings were built, other public service or charitable organisations should be invited to ‘co-locate’ in them in order to make libraries more appealing to a wider range of the borough’s residents.

9.7 Following Cabinet’s approval of these SPDs, they will be formally adopted under the terms of the Town and Country Planning (England) Regulations 2004 by being published (together with the accompanying sustainability appraisals and an ‘Adoption Statement’) on the council website.

10. LIST OF BACKGROUND PAPERS 10.1 London Borough of Barnet Unitary Development Plan (2006), London Plan (2004).

10.2 Any person wishing to inspect these documents should telephone 020 8359 6096.

Legal: SS CFO: CM

53

SPD – Contributions to Education

from Development

Executive summary

Planning obligations, also known as Section 106 agreements, are legal contracts between local planning authorities and property developers that are drafted as part of the process of an applicant obtaining planning permission. Section 106 agreements are a means of ensuring that developers contribute financially to the cost of providing the infrastructure and public services that are needed as a result of their development activity.

The purpose of this document is to provide advice and information to the public and to developers about the levels of Section 106 contributions that Barnet Council will require. Section 106 financial contributions will normally be required from every development project of whatever size.

This supplementary planning document (SPD) has been prepared to supplement the policies and proposals of the London Borough of Barnet’s Unitary Development Plan, adopted in 2006, and the Mayor of London’s London Plan (2004), which together form the development plan for the area.

The purpose of the document is to provide advice and information that elaborate upon the following Unitary Development Plan policies:

• Policy CS8 – Educational Needs Generated by New Housing Development

• Policy IMP1 – Priorities for Planning Obligations.

The document addresses the provision by the council of pre-school and school facilities for the borough’s children, and its approach to planning obligations for education services. The SPD does not introduce new policies, but it provides guidance to indicate how the contributions from residential development towards education will be assessed. Similar policy documents have been produced covering other areas of Barnet’s Section 106 policy.

A summary of the financial contributions that will have to be paid by developers for each new unit of residential housing of various types and size, calculated using the formulae and costs described in detail in this SPD, is shown in the table below.

Table E1: Planning contributions per unit by size and tenure

1 Bedroom 2 Bedrooms 3 Bedrooms 4 Bedrooms Private housing Primary schools £605 £1,714 £3,629 £5,041 Secondary schools £0 £462 £2,773 £4,775 Total £605 £2,176 £6,402 £9,816 Affordable, social rented and intermediate housing Primary schools £277 £1,739 £2,042 £3,327 Secondary schools £39 £770 £1,772 £3,235 Total £316 £2,509 £3,813 £6,562 However, for large development schemes the council will assess the complex factors that must be taken into account in putting together a ‘package’ of Section 106 financial contributions, and the standard values shown in the table above may be subject to variation.

A supplementary addendum to this document will be published annually by the council updating the various data and cost indexes that make up the formula for calculating educational planning obligations. This will ensure that the level of financial contributions to be paid by property

54

SPD – Contributions to Education

from Development

developers will always be as up to date as possible.

This supplementary planning document will be taken into account as a material consideration when planning applications are being considered by the London Borough of Barnet. It supersedes the council’s previous supplementary planning guidance, Education Contributions from Residential Development (2000).

This SPD has been prepared as part of the Local Development Framework. The Local Development Framework is made up of a ‘folder’ of separate documents that will together, in time, fully replace the Unitary Development Plan.

55

SPD – Contributions to Education

from Development

Foreword

Planning obligations, created under the authority of Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, are an essential tool to allow local councils to offset or mitigate the impact on public services that arises when new property development takes place. Section 106 agreements are a means of ensuring that developers contribute to the cost of providing the additional infrastructure and services that are needed to meet the needs of an increased population.

Over the next two decades, Barnet will experience major changes. One of the council’s corporate priorities is to ensure a bright future for children and young people, as described in detail in the council’s Children and Young People’s Plan, by working to improve children’s health, ensure they are safe in Barnet, achieve the best possible results at school and college and make a positive contribution to their local communities. The council’s Section 106 policy towards education will ensure that this remains the case in the future.

Government policy has created a tightly-drawn planning obligations regime, including a series of policy questions (known as ‘the necessity test’) which collectively require a local authority to be sure that the planning obligations it proposes are necessary, planning-related, specifically related to the particular development and reasonable.

The most important information in this document – describing the financial contributions that will have to be made towards schools and education by residential developers, from the smallest project to the largest housing schemes – is contained in Chapter 3.

Barnet’s schools are popular and highly regarded. This supplementary planning document follows national policy guidelines and the council’s vision that Barnet will have:

• Excellent, welcoming and inclusive schools that provide excellent opportunities and meet the expectations of all Barnet’s residents – from those of pre-school age through to parents.

• Outward looking schools that make links with their wider areas and play a full role in the regeneration process, particularly in areas such as Cricklewood, Brent Cross and West Hendon, and Colindale.

• Well-equipped schools that are rich in new information and communications technology (ICT), have space for high quality sports facilities, class rooms and laboratories that meet the needs of the modern curriculum, thereby maintaining the high standards of the achievement currently enjoyed by Barnet’s schools.

• Well-designed schools that are environmentally sustainable – high quality design is essential in new schools, which will all be built in accordance with the principles in the government’s School Design Bulletin whilst respecting the character of local areas. All new schools should be built flexibly, in order to stand the test of time – addressing the needs of the present but able to meet the needs of future generations.

This SPD has been subject to a sustainability appraisal (SA) which sets out the likely significant social, environmental and economic effects of the measures it is seeking to implement. The SA has appraised the SPD and any reasonable alternatives to it, providing the ‘baseline’ against which the effects of the SPD can be considered. The SA has also been subject to consultation.

56

SPD – Contributions to Education

from Development

Contents

1 Introduction .............................................................................................................58

2 Legislative framework and policy context ............................................................59

3 The level of contributions required .......................................................................60

Large developments and affordable housing schemes ......................................61

4 The derivation of educational contributions.........................................................62

The demand for school places – child yield .........................................................62

Adjustment factors .................................................................................................63

Key cost drivers ......................................................................................................64

5 School capacity and the supply of places ............................................................65

Policy background to school capacity issues......................................................65

School capacity in Barnet ......................................................................................66

The use of planning contributions ........................................................................67

6 Practical arrangements related to Section 106 contributions.............................68

Timing of provision of financial contributions .....................................................68

Project management and monitoring....................................................................68

Appendix 1 – Legal and policy framework ......................................................................69

Key elements of Circular 05/2005 relevant to educational provision .................69

Key elements of the London Plan relevant to educational provision ................69

Barnet Council’s Unitary Development Plan ........................................................69

Appendix 2 – Background documents and sources of information .............................71

57

SPD – Contributions to Education

from Development

1 Introduction

1.1 Significant numbers of new homes are likely to be built in Barnet in coming years. The Mayor of London’s London Plan sets a target of 20,550 additional homes to be created in the borough between 2007/08 and 2016/17, an annual target of 2,055 new homes. Other estimates suggest that the predicted population could be as high as 371,000 by the year 2018.

1.2 To accommodate these new homes whilst maintaining and improving the area as a successful city-suburb, and while achieving our commitments to our children, will require significant investment in our ‘social infrastructure’. This will include the provision of schools and facilities for children and young people.

1.3 Barnet Council’s Corporate Plan identifies “a bright future for children and young people” as one of the council’s five key priorities. Similarly, one of the four key themes of the Sustainable Community Strategy for Barnet, which aims to bring together the partner agencies that work in the borough, is "investing in children and young people”. The strategy states that:

We will work together to ensure that Barnet’s environment and natural resources are protected while meeting the growing need over the next 10 years for homes, jobs, services and travel.

1.4 This supplementary planning document (SPD) sets out in detail the council’s expectations of how planning applicants for housing development will be able to contribute to the achievement of these objectives, and how they can assist the borough to help the increasing numbers of pre-school and school age children fulfil their potential. Barnet already has highly regarded schools. The council’s broad aim is to give children an excellent start in education and enable young people to equip themselves with life and work skills.

1.5 The council is preparing further SPDs covering the contributions from development towards aspects of economic prosperity and development, and employment and training initiatives.

1.6 The council will ensure reasonableness and fairness in levying planning obligations. It will ensure education contributions, and any other planning obligations, enhance the quality and sustainability of future development. It will address and overcome the negative impact of development enabling proposals to go ahead which might otherwise be turned down.

58

SPD – Contributions to Education

from Development

2 Legislative framework and policy context

2.1 The statutory basis for contributions from development towards the provision of community facilities is set out in Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as substituted by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991), and Circular 05/2005 – Planning Obligations. The circular explicitly identifies the potential for contributions to support new “community infrastructure”, highlights the need to look at the impacts from development cumulatively and the potential for the pooling of contributions, and states that local authorities should lay out in their development plan documents (DPDs) and supplementary planning documents (SPDs) their generic and detailed policies.

2.2 The London Plan (2004) and the Sub-Regional Development Framework for North London (2006) both point out the need for the provision of ‘social infrastructure’ to meet needs arising from new housing development.

2.3 Barnet’s Unitary Development Plan, adopted in May 2006, includes specific reference to the requirement for financial contributions to be made to provide for new school places (see Appendix 1). In 2007, the council adopted an overarching SPD on Planning Obligations, which further elaborates upon this policy.

2.4 In addition to planning policy, the borough has a number of other statutory requirements placed upon it in relation to the delivery of services for children and young people.

2.5 Section 14 of the Education Act 1996, places a duty on local authorities to secure sufficient schools in order to provide primary and secondary education for all children, and states that the schools should be sufficient in number, character and equipment to provide all pupils with the opportunity of an appropriate education. The government has recently indicated that it will raise the school leaving age from 16 to 18, and when this is implemented, additional contributions from development will be required to fund the additional demand for school provision that results.

2.6 The Childcare Act 2006 consolidates previous legislation which empowers the Secretary of State to set targets for local authorities, and further extends the duties of public agencies, with regard to the provision of childcare. Current requirements include:

• An entitlement of all three and four-year olds to 12½ hours per week of free early years provision for a minimum of 38 weeks per year. From April 2010, this entitlement will be extended to 15 hours per week for all three and four-year olds. The longer-term goal is to provide 20 hours of provision per week.

• By 2008, the government intends that all children in the most disadvantaged areas will have access to a children’s centre. In addition, about 800 centres will be developed in other areas, with all communities having a children’s centre by 2010.

• By 2010 all parents with children aged five to eleven should be offered the guarantee of affordable, school-based childcare between the hours of 8am and 6pm, all year round. Half of all parents are intended to receive this service by 2008.

• Local authorities will be required to assess the local childcare market and to secure sufficient childcare for working parents. Local authorities will not be expected to provide childcare directly, but will be expected to work with local private, voluntary and independent sector providers to meet local need.

59

SPD – Contributions to Education

from Development

3 The level of contributions required

3.1 The council is required by law to provide a range of educational services for children and young people. Where the development of new housing is likely to increase the demand for these services, the council will seek, through the use of its planning powers, to require applicants to provide financial contributions (or otherwise help) to secure sufficient service provision to meet identified needs.

3.2 The value of Section 106 financial contributions towards pre-school/primary and secondary educational provision that will be required from developers, as of 2007/08, for each new unit of housing are shown in Table 1 below.

Table 1: Planning contributions per unit by size and tenure

1 Bedroom 2 Bedrooms 3 Bedrooms 4 Bedrooms Private housing Primary schools £605 £1,714 £3,629 £5,041 Secondary schools £0 £462 £2,773 £4,775 Total £605 £2,176 £6,402 £9,816 Affordable, social rented and intermediate housing Primary schools £277 £1,739 £2,042 £3,327 Secondary schools £39 £770 £1,772 £3,235 Total £316 £2,509 £3,813 £6,562

3.3 For example, it can be seen from the table that a developer proposing to construct a three-

bedroom flat or house for sale to the private sector, would be required to make a Section 106 contribution of £6,402 in total (£3,629 towards the provision of primary school educational capacity and £2,773 towards the provision of secondary school capacity).

3.4 Contributions towards educational provision will normally be expected from all qualifying residential development proposals, whether new build, change of use, conversions or extensions. There will be no minimum threshold at which Section 106 financial contributions for education will be incurred, i.e. for every development proposal, any increase in the net number of residential housing units will normally require a planning contribution.1

3.5 The figures in Table 1 will only apply to those types of new housing which are likely to have children living in them. This would not include such new residential development as specialist housing for the elderly and some types of supported and/or special needs housing.

3.6 The table covers the total educational contribution that will be required per net additional unit, i.e. it includes all payments, whether for pre-school, primary school-age or secondary school-age provision. The data have been adjusted to take into account the 10 per cent of the population of children that are unlikely to use the state educational system.

1 Therefore, in the case of an application for the demolition of an existing residential unit and its replacement with a newly-built property, financial contributions will be required if there is any increase in the net number of units on the site – only if there is a one-for-one replacement of the number of units will no contribution be required. Where new units of mixed sizes are created, the net number of units will be calculated by excluding the largest first, e.g. if two units are demolished to be replaced with five one-bedroom and five two-bedroom units, the net number will be calculated as being five one-bedroom and three two-bedrooms units.

60

SPD – Contributions to Education

from Development

3.7 For the 15 per cent of children who are below school age, applicants proposing major

schemes of over 100 units will need either:

• To make separate contributions towards the provision of community, private or voluntary sector child care on-site; or

• Demonstrate that there is sufficient existing child care provision in the wider area to meet the extra demand created by their development.

3.8 The figures in Table 1 will be reviewed when the government raises the school leaving age, or when other statutory requirements come into place that affect the demand for school provision.

3.9 Details of how the figures in Table 1 were calculated are contained in Chapter 4 of this SPD.

3.10 An addendum to this document will be published annually by the council updating the various data and cost indexes upon which the figures shown in Table 1 are based. This will ensure that the level of financial contributions to be paid by property developers will always be as up to date as possible.

Large developments and affordable housing schemes

3.11 The council recognises the need to ensure that Section 106 financial contributions are directly related in scale and kind to proposed development and are reasonable in other respects.

3.12 The council will therefore consider the specific circumstances of large development schemes and assess the complex factors that must be taken into account in putting together a package of Section 106 financial contributions. Barnet may accept variations in educational planning contributions where the proposed development is required to make significant financial contributions to, or investment in, other public infrastructure provision, affordable housing and/or other requirements which meet the council’s wider planning and regeneration objectives. However, this does not mean that developers of large schemes should assume there will be any reduction in the per unit level of educational contributions.

3.13 In the case of large development schemes, Section 106 educational contributions will be the subject of pre-application discussions, and negotiations during the planning application process, between the developer and the council.

3.14 The negotiated route to determining Section 106 financial contributions will usually apply to large housing development proposals only, for example, those for which the developer is required to submit an environmental statement. Property developers bringing forward major schemes where negotiation will be likely are strongly encouraged to approach the council at an early stage in the development process.

3.15 For reasons of affordability, the council will exempt residential applications made up entirely of affordable housing from the need to make planning obligations towards education (where affordable housing is defined as social rented and intermediate housing, but does not include discounted market housing for sale to the private sector).2

2 More information on the definition of affordable housing is available in Chapter 8 of Barnet’s Unitary Development Plan, and in the recently adopted supplementary planning document on Affordable Housing.

61

SPD – Contributions to Education

from Development

4 The derivation of educational contributions

4.1 The value of planning contributions towards educational provision that will be required from property developers for each net, new unit of housing were shown in Table 1, in the previous chapter. Planning applicants would merely have to multiply the number of housing units proposed of each type and size by the relevant monetary figure to derive their total payable contribution.

4.2 The figures in the table were derived from the following formula:

C = (CYP x ACP x 0.9) + (CYS x ACS x 0.9)

Where:

C = Contribution required in pounds sterling

CYP = Child yield of primary school age resulting from that size of unit

ACP = Average cost per pupil of providing new pre-school and primary places

CYS = Child yield of secondary school age resulting from that size of unit

ACS = Average cost per pupil of providing new secondary school places

0.9 = Factor to adjust for 10 per cent of pupils outside council schools

4.3 For example, in the case of a three bedroom flat or house built for private sale, the calculation would be:

C = (0.36 x £11,202 x 0.9) + (0.18 x £17,116 x 0.9)

C = (£3,629) + (£2,773)

C = £6,402

4.4 Additionally, in the case of affordable housing, a further discount factor of 75 per cent was applied. For example, in the case of a three bedroom affordable flat or house, the calculation would be:

C = (0.81 x £11,202 x 0.9) + (0.46 x £17,116 x 0.9)

C = (£8,166 x 0.25) + (£7,086 x 0.25)

C = (£2,042) + (£1,772)

C = £3,813

4.5 The following sections describe in more detail the underlying data and sources of information that were used in the calculations.

The demand for school places – child yield

4.6 Recognising the potential for significant additional demand for school places in future years, the council has examined a range of research on the likely numbers of extra children that will live in developments in the borough. This is known as the child yield of a development.

4.7 This research exercise indicated that the best source of information came from an analysis

62

SPD – Contributions to Education

from Development

of the 2002 London Household Survey undertaken by the Greater London Authority.3 The survey of 8,000 households in London provided child yield data separately for inner and outer London, covering different age ranges by the type of housing – either private sector or council/housing authority – and the number of bedrooms.

4.8 The GLA data are directly comparable with, and update, the child yield figures derived by the London Research Centre (the predecessor to the Greater London Authority) in 1992, which were widely used by most local authorities over the subsequent decade (Barnet’s previous supplementary planning guidance issued in 2000, Education Contributions from Residential Development, used the London Research Centre dataset).

4.9 The 2002 GLA data have been reproduced in Table 2 below. For the purposes of this SPD, primary school age has been defined as children from three to ten years old inclusive (i.e. the sum of the child yield for three to four year olds and five to ten year olds). Secondary school age has been defined as children aged from 11 to 15 years old inclusive.

Table 2: Child yield per unit by size and tenure

1 Bedroom 2 Bedrooms 3 Bedrooms 4 Bedrooms

Private housing

3 to 4 year olds 0.02 0.10 0.16 0.17

5 to 10 year olds 0.04 0.07 0.20 0.33

3 to 10 year olds (primary) 0.06 0.17 0.36 0.50

11 to 15 year olds (secondary) 0.00 0.03 0.18 0.31

Affordable, social rented and intermediate housing

3 to 4 year olds 0.08 0.30 0.28 0.47

5 to 10 year olds 0.03 0.39 0.53 0.85

3 to 10 year olds (primary) 0.11 0.69 0.81 1.32

11 to 15 year olds (secondary) 0.01 0.20 0.46 0.84 Adjustment factors

4.10 When calculating the financial contributions for private and affordable housing, an adjustment was made for those pupils that will not attend schools maintained by Barnet Council. In addition, when calculating the financial contributions for affordable housing, a second adjustment was made to discount the contributions by 75 per cent.

4.11 The council knows from information collected from school rolls that only 90 per cent of children that live in the borough will attend state schools here, as there will be some leakage into private schools and into state schools in other boroughs. This underlies the 0.9 adjustment factor shown in the formula in paragraph 4.2.

4.12 The reason for levying Section 106 contributions for educational places is that new development brings additional children on to the council’s school rolls, i.e. creates a direct impact on services. However, in the case of social rented and other affordable housing, the council usually has ‘nomination rights’ to any such housing built in Barnet. This means that

3 See Greater London Authority, DMAG Briefing 2005/25 – Child Yield, Data Management and Analysis Group (August 2005).

63

SPD – Contributions to Education

from Development

the tenants who will eventually occupy such affordable housing commonly already reside in Barnet, and any children in such households are on the council’s school rolls already.

4.13 The recommended, standard practice in London’s housing sector is that 75 per cent of nominations to family-size housing be given to the ‘home’ local authority in the location where the affordable housing is actually built (as outlined in the London Boroughs Association4 publication Partners in Meeting Housing Need). All registered social landlords building new affordable homes in Barnet, for example, are required to sign-up to this standard as a minimum requirement. An operating assumption has therefore been made that 75 per cent of any children generated by affordable housing units will already be attending Barnet Council schools. A 75 per cent abatement of the Section 106 contributions for affordable units in mixed use schemes has been implemented, therefore (see the calculations in paragraph 4.4).5

4.14 The council will review this approach if new policies and practices are introduced regarding nomination rights to affordable housing across London’s housing sector.

Key cost drivers

4.15 The most widely used data on the average cost to local authorities of providing extra school places are the School Building Costs issued annually by the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF).6 These figures detail the costs per pupil for the construction of accommodation to provide additional places. Since they incorporate a location factor to adjust for differences between geographical areas, they are individual to the London Borough of Barnet and will provide a guide to the costs of re-building and/or expanding schools within the borough specifically. For the financial year 2006/07, the DCSF estimated the cost per place in Barnet as:

• At pre-school and primary school level – £11,202 per pupil

• At secondary school level – £17,116 per pupil.7

4.16 These figures cover only the capital costs of development and do not include the cost of land for school sites, or any revenue contribution towards running schools.

4 The London Boroughs Association is now known as London Councils. 5 For the purposes of this SPD, affordable housing would not include discounted market housing for sale to the private sector. 6 Formerly the Department for Education and Skills (DfES). 7 As noted in paragraph 3.8, these cost indexes and other relevant data will be updated on an annual basis.

64

SPD – Contributions to Education

from Development

5 School capacity and the supply of places

Policy background to school capacity issues

5.1 The council has a statutory responsibility, under the 1996 Education Act, to ensure that there are sufficient school places in its area, taking into account the different ages, aptitudes and special educational needs of pupils of school age. As noted in Chapter 1, it will also be required by government targets to ensure an expansion of pre-school provision over the medium-term, and this requirement will apply to all children, including those that live in new developments at some future date.

5.2 Educational institutions are not expected to operate at full capacity (i.e. with no unoccupied places) as:

• It is important to retain some margin of surplus capacity to enable parental preference and flexibility of provision to be exercised.

• There must be cover for unforeseen fluctuations in the numbers of local children requiring places due to house moving (albeit into pre-existing accommodation).

• In faith or single gender schools, places are not necessarily available to the wider community because pupils must meet their entry criteria.

• The data on spare capacity relate to the average for the entire school, but spare capacity is not always distributed in such a way, i.e. there may be a surplus of places in one year but high demand in another.

5.3 The government, in Circular 05/2005 on Planning Obligations, also addressed issues of spare capacity. The circular presented a clear policy in terms of the ‘tests of necessity’ and the issue of spare capacity. It made it clear that property developers could be expected to pay for the future provision of educational facilities, even though the need for them might not be directly caused by their development:

• Paragraph B16 noted that “A reasonable obligation will seek to restore facilities, resources and amenities to a quality equivalent to that existing before the development”.

• Paragraph B22 noted that “…in some cases individual developments will have some impact but not sufficient to justify the need for a discrete piece of infrastructure. In these instances, local planning authorities may wish to consider whether it is appropriate to seek contribution to specific future provision in line with the requirement for demonstrating need as set out above. In these cases spare capacity in existing infrastructure provision should not be credited to earlier developers”.

5.4 It is now recognised that in areas of rapid population growth and high demand for educational places, developers cannot use spare capacity as an argument to avoid the payment of Section 106 contributions. In such areas, an unjust situation can otherwise arise that disadvantages one property developer at the expense of another; for example, if a developer (“Developer A”) receives planning permission, takes up spare education capacity and makes no planning contributions, while “Developer B” seeks to gain planning consent at a later date for a similar development, but finds no spare capacity and is obliged to make a full Section 106 contribution. Circular 05/2005 makes it clear that developers should not use spare capacity as a ‘free gift’ and therefore encourages (in cases where a council’s local plan policies require it) all developments to incorporate the costs of meeting their own educational impact.

65

SPD – Contributions to Education

from Development

School capacity in Barnet

5.5 The council keeps the number of available places in its schools under regular review. In Barnet, the most recent data (as of May 2007) showed that the number of surplus places at primary school level, as a proportion of all primary spaces, was 7% on average for non-religious schools. But these surplus school places were concentrated in a small number of schools, whereas others were heavily oversubscribed. Barnet Council has embarked on an ambitious programme to rebuild all of its primary schools. In the first wave, we expect 10 schools to be rebuilt at a cost of £90 million in total.

5.6 As of May 2007, the number of surplus places at secondary school level as a proportion of all secondary spaces, was 3% on average for non-religious schools, although a number of schools were particularly oversubscribed.

5.7 In the context of Barnet – given the high pressure for new development, the anticipated growth of the population and the increased demand for education – the vast majority of property developers, other than those putting forward schemes composed entirely of affordable housing units, must expect to contribute towards the cost of new educational provision.

5.8 In some areas of the borough, it is likely that the cumulative impact of development will require the expansion of existing schools and/or the development of new schools, and the expansion of existing, or development of new, children’s centres and pre-school provision. In other areas, the council will insist on the new provision of educational facilities, especially within large development proposals which are subject to the negotiated route to determining financial contributions and for which the tariff approach to Section 106 contributions, described in Chapter 3, does not address the direct impact of the development on council services (see paragraph 3.12).

5.9 Similarly, when large housing developments are proposed, the council may require developers to provide it with a site suitable for the creation of a new school or other educational provision. A residential development of 1,000 units would be almost certain to require the establishment of a new school facility.

5.10 The council has undertaken a review of housing capacity estimates and school provision factors, to identify those areas of the borough where significant, new, additional provision is highly likely to be required:

• Cricklewood, Brent Cross and West Hendon Regeneration Area

• Colindale

• Mill Hill East.

5.11 Planning applicants seeking to bring forward housing developments in these areas should contact the council at an early stage to discuss the likely effects of their proposals. The council will work with applicants to ensure that the cumulative impacts of development are mitigated, that where necessary appropriate sites are identified, and that costs are apportioned fairly.

5.12 The council will continue to monitor the situation in relation to school places and the figures for the cost of educational provision, and will issue revised data and guidance in its supplementary addendum to this SPD.

66

SPD – Contributions to Education

from Development

The use of planning contributions

5.13 Section 106 contributions will be suitably expended by the council on capital investment for providing additional educational capacity in the borough. This might include, for example, but is not limited to:

• Feasibility studies and design work related to building schools.

• Providing additional school places.

• Providing new schools or school buildings.

• Adapting and extending existing school buildings.

• Improving school grounds, sports and physical education facilities.

• Purchasing new equipment required as a direct result of the additional demand.

5.14 Planning contributions for education might also be used as part of projects targeting the provision of multi-purpose facilities associated with educational use; or in areas where the cumulative impact of development will create additional demand for educational provision, contributions might be ‘pooled’ to meet needs.

67

SPD – Contributions to Education

from Development

6 Practical arrangements related to Section 106 contributions

Timing of provision of financial contributions

6.1 When property developers enter into Section 106 contracts with the council, it will ensure that appropriate triggers are in place in the legal agreements to ensure that new educational provision is in place upon occupation of new housing units. Payments will therefore usually be required on the commencement of construction. On large development schemes, the council might agree to monitoring and phasing arrangements to ensure the timely provision of school places. All planning contributions will be subject to index linking.

6.2 If a developer is required to construct a new school or transfer land for a school to the council, it will be obliged to make such transfers at no charge to the council and free from financial ties. The land should have planning permission for educational or unrestricted D1 use, must be fully serviced, and have access provided to the boundary (to a standard specified by the council).

6.3 It should be noted that in the furtherance of its duty to provide suitable pre-school and school places, the council, in those circumstances where financial contributions do not meet the full cost of educational demand, reserves the right to insert planning conditions to ensure that the occupation of the development is conditional on necessary educational provision being in place.

Project management and monitoring

6.4 All Section 106 agreements will be logged and monitored and managed from the date of agreement until the full realisation of the funds owed.

6.5 Developers should also note that there will be an additional contribution that will be required for this project management aspect of planning contributions administration (as described in the council’s adopted supplementary planning document on Planning Obligations).

68

SPD – Contributions to Education

from Development

Appendix 1 – Legal and policy framework

Key elements of Circular 05/2005 relevant to educational provision

The draft circular greatly strengthens local authorities’ opportunities to argue for the provision of additional educational or other community facilities related to new developments. Paragraph B15 states:

If a proposed development would give rise to the need for additional or expanded community infrastructure, for example, a new school classroom, which is necessary in planning terms and not provided for in an application, it might be acceptable for contributions to be sought towards this additional provision through a planning obligation.

Where justified, payment for the maintenance costs of providing services are now acceptable as part of Section 106 funding. Paragraph B20 states:

…where contributions to the initial support (“pump priming”) of new facilities are necessary, these should reflect the time lag between the provision of the new facility and its inclusion in public sector funding streams…Pump priming maintenance payments should be time limited and not be required in perpetuity by planning obligations.

Pooled contributions and the cumulative effect of a number of schemes can be taken into account. It is not just one-off, big developments that can have an effect on education delivery – a number of smaller schemes, when taken together, can have a significant impact upon the delivery of various elements of services for children and young people. Paragraph B22 states that:

…in some cases, individual developments will have some impact although insufficient to justify the need for a discrete piece of infrastructure. In these instances, local planning authorities may wish to consider whether it is appropriate to seek contributions to specific future provision…In these cases, spare capacity in existing infrastructure provision should not be credited to earlier developers.

Key elements of the London Plan relevant to educational provision

Policy 6A.5 on planning obligations in the Mayor’s London Plan regards education at all levels as a high priority and explains:

• By 2016, London’s school age population is projected to increase by almost 8 per cent. Just over half of this total growth of 140,000 is expected to be in Outer London, and so boroughs will have to ensure adequate provision to cope with this increase (including the availability of land for any potential school expansion).

• Where appropriate, boroughs should use planning obligations to address shortfalls in school capacity arising from planned new housing development. Developers may be required to contribute to funding the one-off capital costs of providing new permanent and temporary classroom space in order to meet rising school rolls.

• Boroughs should set out a clear framework for negotiations on planning obligations in their unitary development plans, having regard to central government policy and guidance and local and strategic considerations.

Barnet Council’s Unitary Development Plan

The council’s key priorities for planning obligations are as set out in Policy IMP1 of the Unitary Development Plan.

69

SPD – Contributions to Education

from Development

Policy IMP1 – Priorities for Planning Obligations

The council’s key priorities for planning obligations will be for the provision of:

• Residential Development: » Improvements to public transport infrastructure, systems and services. » Educational provision in areas with existing shortages of school places or

where the development will create such a shortage. » Affordable or special needs housing to meet identified local needs. » Where appropriate; highway improvements (including benefits for pedestrians

and cyclists), environmental improvements; the provision of open space; and other community facilities.

In applying Policy IMP1, the range of planning obligations will be a matter for negotiation between the council and the developer. The guiding principle in this respect is set out in policy IMP2 – Use of Planning Obligations.

Policy IMP2 – Use of Planning Obligations

In order to secure the best use of land, the council will seek to ensure through the use of conditions or planning obligations attached to planning permissions, that new development provides for the infrastructure, facilities, amenities and other planning benefits which are necessary to support and serve it, and which are necessary to offset any consequential planning loss which may result from the development.

Policy CS8 expressly requires developers to meet the extra educational and associated community uses cost born by new housing development.

Policy CS8 – Educational Needs Generated by New Housing Development

Where a residential development creates a need for additional school places, the council will seek to enter into planning obligations with the developer to secure contributions to their provision.

The commentary to this policy explains:

New housing development, including conversions, can increase the number of children in an area and has the potential to place an even greater demand for pupil places on local schools. If a proposed residential development is situated in an area where there is a shortage of school places, or will create a shortage of places, the council will seek to enter into a Section 106 agreement with developers in order to help meet the educational costs of the residential development, and seek to secure contributions to fund the extra school places required. The council recognises that certain types of housing, such as specialist housing for the elderly, will not generate an increase in the numbers of children, and therefore contributions towards educational facilities will not be sought by the council in respect of such development. Special considerations will also apply to social housing developments accommodating local needs, where the council has nomination rights.

70

SPD – Contributions to Education

from Development

Appendix 2 – Background documents and sources of information

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and 1991

Department of Communities and Local Government, Circular 05/2005, Planning Obligations (2005)

Department for Education and Skills, Building Bulletin, Various Editions

Department for Education and Skills, Education Building Projects: Information on Costs and Performance Data (2003)

Department for Education and Skills, School Building Location Factors (October 2006)

Greater London Authority, London Plan – Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London (2004)

Greater London Authority, DMAG Briefing 2005/25 – Child Yield, Data Management and Analysis Group (August 2005)

Levison, D. and Robertson, I., Partners in Meeting Housing Need – A Good Practice Guide, Association of London Authorities, the London Boroughs Association & the London Housing Associations Group (1989)

London Borough of Barnet, Class Size Implementation Plan (2006)

London Borough of Barnet, Education Service Plan 2006/07 (2006)

London Borough of Barnet, Education Asset Management Plan (2006)

London Borough of Barnet, Special Educational Needs Inclusion Strategy 2004 – 2008 (2004)

London Borough of Barnet, School Organisation Plan 2003 – 2008: Children’s Plan (2003)

London Borough of Barnet, School Organisation Plan 2003 – 2008: Statistical Update (December 2005)

London Borough of Barnet, Planning Obligations, Supplementary Planning Document (2006)

London Borough of Barnet, Unitary Development Plan (2006)

National Housing Federation, Core Lettings Data (2006)

Office for National Statistics, Census 2001, Table CO511 (2006)

71

SPD – Contributions to Library Services

from Development

Executive summary

Planning obligations, also known as Section 106 agreements, are legal contracts between local planning authorities and property developers that are drafted as part of the process of an applicant obtaining planning permission. Section 106 agreements are a means of ensuring that developers contribute financially to the cost of providing the infrastructure and public services that are needed as a result of their development activity.

The purpose of this document is to provide advice and information to the public and to developers about the levels of Section 106 contributions that Barnet Council will require. Section 106 financial contributions will be required from every qualifying development project of whatever size as appropriate.

This supplementary planning document (SPD) has been prepared to supplement the policies and proposals of the London Borough of Barnet’s Unitary Development Plan, adopted in 2006, and the Mayor of London’s London Plan (2004), which together form the development plan for the area.

This document elaborates upon the following Unitary Development Plan policies:

• Policy CS2 – Community and Religious Facilities – Planning Obligations

• Policy IMP1 – Priorities for Planning Obligations.

The document covers the issues specifically relating to the provision by the London Borough of Barnet of library and related cultural/learning facilities and the role of Section 106 obligations in achieving this. Similar documents have been produced covering other areas of Barnet’s Section 106 policy.

A summary of the financial contributions that will have to be paid by developers for each new unit of residential housing of various types, calculated using the formulae and costs described in detail in this SPD, is shown in the table below.

Table E1: Monetary contribution per residential unit by dwelling type

Private House Private

Flat Affordable

House Affordable Flat Contribution £244 £139 £310 £174 Alternatively, a fixed sum of £43 per employee will be required from all commercial property developments. The number of employees – and therefore the total contribution to be paid – will be estimated based on the floorspace of the development in square metres.

A supplementary addendum to this document will be published annually by the council updating the various data and cost indexes that make up the formulae for calculating planning obligations related to libraries. This will ensure that the level of financial contributions to be paid by property developers will always be as up to date as possible.

This supplementary planning document will be taken into account as a material consideration when planning applications are being assessed by the London Borough of Barnet.

This SPD has been prepared as part of the Local Development Framework. The Local Development Framework is made up of a ‘folder’ of separate documents that will together, in time, fully replace the Unitary Development Plan.

72

SPD – Contributions to Library Services

from Development

Foreword

Planning obligations, created under the authority of Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, are an essential tool to allow local councils to offset or mitigate the impact on public services that arises when new property development takes place. Section 106 agreements are a means of ensuring that developers contribute to the cost of providing the additional infrastructure and services that are needed to meet the needs of an increased population.

Such increases in population resulting from development are expected to place serious pressures on libraries, which are already required to meet the requirements of Barnet’s diverse community. One of the council’s corporate priorities is to ensure Barnet remains a successful suburb, and central to this objective will be to deliver future housing and population growth in a sustainable way.

Government policy has created a tightly-drawn planning obligations regime, including a series of policy questions (known as ‘the necessity test’) which collectively require a local authority to be sure that the planning obligations it proposes are necessary, planning-related, specifically related to the particular development and reasonable.

The most important information in this document – describing the financial contributions that will have to be made towards library services by property developers, from the smallest residential scheme to the largest commercial developments – is contained in Chapter 3.

This document reflects Barnet’s vision that it will provide library services which:

• Are hubs of the community, playing a strong role as ‘civic spaces’ which users are actively involved in running, with decisions being taken locally.

• Increase customers’ access to localisation and choice – the borough will provide a network of ‘leading’ and ‘local’ libraries, with the former group, for example Hendon and Chipping Barnet, being main libraries that offer a breadth and depth of services and long opening hours.

• Maximise the use of new technology, in order to free staff from routine, transactional work and allow them to have more, direct customer interaction, while facilitating the use of libraries as ‘touch-down work places’ by customers through implementing wireless technology.

• Are multi-functional in their ethos, offering supported access to a wider range of council information, a range of community services and even the co-location of other public services.

This SPD has been subject to a sustainability appraisal which sets out the likely significant social, environmental and economic effects of the measures it is seeking to implement. The sustainability appraisal has appraised the SPD and any reasonable alternatives to it, providing the ‘baseline’ against which the effects of the SPD can be considered. The sustainability appraisal has also been subjected to public consultation.

73

SPD – Contributions to Library Services

from Development

Contents

1 Introduction .............................................................................................................75

2 Legislative framework and policy context ............................................................76

Planning ............................................................................................................................... 76

3 The level and form of contributions required.......................................................77

Financial contributions....................................................................................................... 77

Residential development.................................................................................................... 77

Commercial development .................................................................................................. 77

Non-financial contributions ............................................................................................... 78

4 The derivation of contribution figures ..................................................................80

The contribution formula for residential developments.................................................. 80

Key cost drivers .................................................................................................................. 80

Measuring demand generated by housing development ................................................ 81

The contribution formula for commercial developments................................................ 81

5 The use of funds .....................................................................................................83

Fixed-site libraries and multi-purpose buildings ............................................................. 83

Contributions towards mobile library services ................................................................ 83

6 Practical arrangements ..........................................................................................84

Timing of provision of financial contributions ................................................................. 84

Monitoring and project management ................................................................................ 84

Appendix 1 .........................................................................................................................85

Table A1: Public library standards (PLSS) ....................................................................... 85

Appendix 2 – Key elements of Circular 02/05 relevant to social infrastructure ...........86

Key elements of the London Plan relevant to social infrastructure............................... 86

Barnet Council’s UDP ......................................................................................................... 87

Appendix 3 – Bibliography ...............................................................................................89

Background documents and legislation........................................................................... 89

Further sources of information.......................................................................................... 89

74

SPD – Contributions to Library Services

from Development

1 Introduction

1.1 Significant numbers of new homes are likely to be built in Barnet in the coming years. The Mayor of London’s London Plan sets a target of 20,550 additional homes to be created in the borough between 2007/8 and 2016/17, an annual target of 2,055 new homes. To accommodate these new homes, whilst maintaining and improving the area as a successful suburb, will require significant investment in our ‘social infrastructure’.

1.2 The increase in population resulting from development is expected to place serious pressures on libraries, which are already required to meet all the requirements of Barnet’s diverse community. Whilst the ongoing cost of serving new residents should in principle be met from the additional revenues collected through council tax, the initial, one-off costs cannot be met in this way. Developers’ contributions are therefore needed to ensure service provision mitigates the impact of their property development activity.

1.3 Barnet Council has high aspirations for the provision and delivery of a comprehensive and efficient library service. Its aim is to open up the world of learning to the whole community using all media – including books but also encompassing new information and communications technology (ICT) – to support people’s educational, recreational, cultural and information needs.

1.4 Barnet has a network of 16 fixed-site libraries, which cover a spectrum from small, local outlets through to large ‘leading’ libraries serving a wide catchment area, with commensurately increasing facilities. Together, they deliver a comprehensive range of services, with some opening seven days per week, including evenings. In addition there is a purpose built, fully-accessible mobile library which visits street sites, schools and sheltered housing across the borough every week and which is focused on areas that are relatively isolated and not within the vicinity of a fixed-site library. Furthermore, under the Home Library Service initiative, the library service reaches out to those who are unable to travel from home unaided. Some libraries provide a variety of other community services: in Grahame Park and East Barnet, training is available for computer and other learning skills to everyone over 16 years. Grahame Park also has a Family Learning Centre and a Homework Centre where help is on hand to parents to assist children with their school work.

1.5 Barnet Council is planning to transform its approach in order to provide a wider range of services in the ‘leading’ libraries whilst maintaining the current level of provision in the ‘local’ libraries. Further details are contained in the council’s new Library Strategy (available at http://committeepapers.barnet.gov.uk/democracy/reports/reportdetail.asp?ReportID=5782), produced in July 2007.

1.6 The focus in Barnet will be on the breadth, depth and quality of the services that libraries provide. Many of our libraries are in sound buildings in good locations, but some are not, and these will be addressed over time and as opportunities arise. This strategy will position the council to develop a network of libraries differentiated according to local need.

1.7 This supplementary planning document (SPD) sets out in detail the council’s expectations of how planning applicants for housing and commercial development will be able to contribute to the achievement of these objectives, and how they can assist the borough to help the increasing population fulfil its potential. The council’s broad aim is to promote improvement through learning – giving children an excellent start in education, enabling young people to equip themselves with life and work skills and encouraging adults to achieve their full potential through continuing study.

75

SPD – Contributions to Library Services

from Development

2 Legislative framework and policy context

Planning

2.1 The statutory basis for contributions from development towards the provision of community facilities is set out in Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as substituted by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991), and Circular 05/2005 – Planning Obligations.

2.2 The circular explicitly highlights the use of developers’ contributions to mitigate the impacts of new development where “...it would give rise to a need for additional or expanded community infrastructure”; outlines the need to look at the impacts from development cumulatively and the potential for the pooling of contributions; and encourages the development of “formulaic and standard charges” to assess the extent of contributions from developers. It also advises local authorities to lay out in their development plan documents (DPDs) and supplementary planning documents (SPDs) their generic and detailed planning contributions policies.

2.3 The London Plan (2004) and the Sub-Regional Development Framework for North London (2006) both point out the need for the provision of ‘social infrastructure’ to meet needs arising from new housing development. The London Borough of Barnet’s Unitary Development Plan, adopted in May 2006, includes reference to the requirement for financial contributions to be made to provide for such services. The council adopted an overarching SPD on Planning Obligations in 2006, which further elaborated upon this policy (for further policy guidance, please refer to Appendix 2).

2.4 The industry organisation for libraries, Museums, Libraries and Archives South East (MLA South East)1 suggests local planning and library authorities adopt a minimum library tariff of £92.13 per person in new housing as a starting point for their negotiations with developers.

Other statutory requirements

2.5 As a library authority, Barnet Council has a statutory duty to provide a public library service and to ensure that it is “comprehensive and efficient”. The public library standards which came into force on 1 April 2001, define nationally what a comprehensive and efficient library service should be. They establish an entitlement to a minimum level of library provision which is accessible to every person who lives, works or studies within the area of a library authority.2 They also provide a widely recognised benchmark against which individual service users and communities can measure their needs and expectations (see Appendix 1 for full details of the public library standards).

1 Formerly the South East Museum, Library and Archive Council (SEMLAC). 2 Although the council’s obligation to lend materials extends only to those who live, work or study full-time in Barnet, it has a statutory duty to allow access to its libraries to everyone.

76

SPD – Contributions to Library Services

from Development

3 The level and form of contributions required

Financial contributions

3.1 The council is required, therefore, by law to provide a minimum level of library provision.

3.2 Where new development is likely to increase the demand for these services, the council will, through the use of its planning powers, require property developers to provide financial contributions (or otherwise help) to secure sufficient service provision to meet identified needs. The level of contributions will be based on the extent of development and the additional usage of services that is generated (assessed on the basis of the extra population that results).

Residential development

3.3 The value of Section 106 financial contributions for libraries that will be required from residential schemes for each new unit of housing is shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Monetary contribution per residential unit by dwelling type

Private House Private Flat

Affordable House

Affordable Flat

Contribution £244 £139 £310 £174

3.4 Contributions will be required from:

• All housing sites of one new unit or more.

• All residential homes and sheltered housing, the residents of which will also make use of public libraries. However, the requirement for financial contributions from students' halls of residence will be abated by 50 per cent to reflect the existence of college or other dedicated library facilities and the effect on municipal library usage.

3.5 Individual schemes creating up to 1,000 dwelling units will normally not be likely to generate sufficient demand to require substantial investment into new library services, but will be required to contribute towards improving existing provision.

3.6 The council recognises the need to ensure that financial contributions are reasonable. In some circumstances, it may accept variations in contributions for major schemes if the proposed development is required to make significant financial contributions to, or investment in, other public infrastructure provision, affordable housing and/or other requirements which meet the council’s wider planning and regeneration objectives.

3.7 Similarly, the council will exempt residential applications made up entirely of affordable housing from the need to make planning obligations towards libraries.

Commercial development

3.8 Contributions will also be expected from commercial and mixed use development, given that library authorities are obliged to serve those who work in their area. The larger the development, the more employees there will be and the greater the planning contribution.

3.9 A fixed sum of £43 per employee will be required from all commercial developments.

77

SPD – Contributions to Library Services

from Development

3.10 The number of employees (and therefore the total contribution to be paid) will be estimated

based on the floorspace of the development in square metres. Because different industries need different amounts of floorspace for each employee, the calculation will vary slightly for different types of commercial development, as shown below in Table 2.3

Table 2: Floorspace ratios for various commercial use classes

Description of Development

Use Class

Floorspace per Employee Ratio

General retail and shops; food superstores A1 20m2 per employee

Other superstores; retail warehousing including wholesale warehousing A1 90m2 per employee

Financial and professional services premises A2 20m2 per employee

Restaurants, cafes, drinking establishments and takeaways A3 – A5 20m2 per employee

Offices other than Class A2; business parks; call centres B1 22m2 per employee

General industry B2 20m2 per employee

Storage and distribution industries B8 80m2 per employee

Leisure facilities; cinemas; sports centres D2 90m2 per employee

Hotels C1 1 employee per 2 bedrooms

3.11 Using the information in Table 2, applicants would be able to perform a simple calculation to work out their total planning contribution. More information on the process of calculation is given in paragraph 4.16.

Non-financial contributions

3.12 For larger-scale developments of over 1,000 residential units, or mixed use schemes involving a significant amount of housing, a substantial investment in new library services will be required. The type and form of such new provision will depend upon the nature and the scale of the development, and will be discussed by the council with the planning applicant. (This issue is addressed further in paragraph 5.3.)

3.13 In some circumstances, especially where the pressure from development necessitates the acquisition of land for a new or relocated public library, a developer’s planning obligations might entail the provision of a land parcel for the siting of the library.

3.14 If the council considers the best means of delivering services to new, larger-scale developments is a mobile library, a landowner/property developer will be required:

3 The information in Table 2 comes from research conducted by English Partnerships and Arup Economics into the ‘employment densities’ of different types of commercial premises (2001).

78

SPD – Contributions to Library Services

from Development

• To provide an area of land (of a sufficient size to fit the turning circle of a long vehicle)

that is suitable for the hard-standing of a mobile library, with access to a power supply and telecommunications network.

• To provide a proportionate financial contribution towards the costs of providing the mobile library.

79

SPD – Contributions to Library Services

from Development

4 The derivation of contribution figures

The contribution formula for residential developments

4.1 The levels of financial contribution for residential developments shown in Table 1 have been be calculated according to the following formula:

Contribution required = C x Y

Where:

C = Cost per person of new/extra library services

Y = Average demand generated by a dwelling unit

4.2 When suitable data on the cost per person and the average demand generated by a unit of housing (the ‘occupancy rate’) are put into the formula, the result is a fixed monetary value per dwelling unit, for each of the different types of unit (as shown in Table 1).

Key cost drivers

4.3 The cost of provision of new and extra library services has been estimated at £97 per person as a minimum.

4.4 This figure is composed of a space standard, which determines how much library ‘space’ is needed for each extra person, and the cost of building that library space. The figure excludes land costs.

The space standard

4.5 Various studies show between 23m2 and 38m2 of library facilities are required for every 1,000 of the population. There has been a tendency for the figure to rise through time, not least because libraries are acquiring more functions, often at the behest of central government. For the purpose of this SPD, it has been decided to opt for the average of 30m2 per 1,000 population as being the requirement.

Building costs

4.6 The starting point for the calculation of the cost of constructing a new library is the building cost data derived from the quarterly Building Costs Information Service (BCIS) survey by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. The figures below are based on the costs of accepted tenders for 97 public library schemes across England over recent years.4 They do not include the cost of land.

Table 3: Construction costs of a library as of second quarter 2006

Aspect of Work Cost Running Total

BCIS modal building cost for public library £1,206 per metre2 £1,206 per metre2

South East regional adjustor [x 1.08] £96 per metre2 £1,302 per metre2

External works, car parking, hard £195 per metre2 £1,497 per metre2

4 The figures relate to the second quarter of 2006, and would be uprated to account for inflation using the All-items Retail Price Index (RPI).

80

SPD – Contributions to Library Services

from Development

standing, landscaping, security fencing, signage [assume 15%]

Design costs [assume 15%] £225 per metre2 £1,722 per metre2

Fitting out, including initial book costs etc. and provision of ITC [88% of capital costs of £1,497]

£1,318 per metre2 £3,040 per metre2

Total £3,040 per metre2

4.7 Once inflation has been accounted for, the cost of building a library will amount to £3,228 per

metre2 as of February 2008. The cost of 30m2 of library provision at £3,228 per metre2 = £96,831.

4.8 The cost per person would therefore be £96,831 divided by 1,000 persons = £96.83 per person, rounded to £97 per person for 2008/09.

4.9 This figure will be reviewed on an annual basis and planning applicants will be informed of the prevailing level.

Measuring demand generated by housing development

4.10 The cost figure detailed in paragraph 4.3 and following (£97 per person) must be applied to the occupancy rate generated by different types of residential dwelling units, and the size of a development, in order to determine the total financial contribution required.

4.11 The demand generated by different types of dwelling units (the ‘occupancy rate’) is summarised in Table 4 below.

Table 4: Demand generated by types of dwelling unit

Private House

Private Flat

Affordable House

Affordable Flat

Number of Persons 2.5 1.4 3.2 1.8

4.12 For student and other halls of residence, hostels and sheltered housing developments, the number of persons will be assessed as one person per room.

The contribution formula for commercial developments

4.13 Any property development, be it residential or commercial, that increases the potential number of library users will impose an additional financial burden on the council.

4.14 The fixed financial contribution for commercial developments used in Table 2, £43 per employee, was calculated according to the following formula:

Contribution Per Employee = C x N

Where:

C = Cost per person of new/extra library services

N = Proportion of workers in Barnet from outside the borough

4.15 The cost of extra library provision is £97 per person (see paragraph 4.8). Using information

81

SPD – Contributions to Library Services

from Development

from the 2001 national census, it is known that the proportion of people who work in Barnet but live outside the borough is 44 per cent. Multiplying the two figures gives the fixed financial contribution of £43 per employee.

4.16 To estimate the number of employees that will be generated by a new commercial development, the following formula is used.

Number of Employees = S F

Where:

S = Size of the development in square metres

F = Floorspace ratio by type of use

4.17 The size of a proposed development can be straightforwardly measured as its ‘net internal floorspace’ in square metres.

4.18 The floorspace ratio, ‘F’, is an estimate of the average space needed for each employee. This varies according to the type of building (see Table 2 above). For example, the best available evidence is that an office development (Use Class B1) requires on average 22m2 of space per employee – offices tend to be more densely occupied by employees than warehouse space, for example. Therefore, a 100m2 office development would generate ‘4.5 employees’.

4.19 Multiplying the contribution per employee by the number of employees would allow a developer to calculate the total S.106 obligation that will be payable. Again using the example of a property developer bringing forward an office development of 100m2, the total planning contribution would be calculated as:

Total Contribution = [£43 per employee] x [4.5 employees] = £194

82

SPD – Contributions to Library Services

from Development

5 The use of funds

5.1 Financial contributions will be used for a variety of service modifications, to maintain the library authority’s existing performance and ensure that progress is made towards full compliance with national standards. Contributions will be expended on capital investment and to ensure there is sufficient and extra capacity – this might include, for example, but is not limited to:

• Feasibility studies and design work.

• Adapting and extending buildings and facilities.

• Providing new or relocated, fixed-site or mobile libraries, or more mobile library stops.

• Purchasing new books, ICT equipment and other materials required as a direct result of the additional demand.

5.2 The cumulative impact of small and incremental development will always result in additional demands being placed on library services and facilities and therefore contributions might be pooled to address these needs.

Fixed-site libraries and multi-purpose buildings

5.3 As noted in paragraph 3.12, there are likely to be instances where development pressures are significant enough to require the provision of new or reconfigured library services. In some circumstances, the council might elect to ‘co-locate’ a library with other public services or even private sector partners.

5.4 To benefit from economies of scale and to achieve greater social integration, it is now considered highly desirable to include library facilities with other community resources such as educational facilities, health services and recreational facilities. The provision of well-designed and a well-equipped multi-purpose buildings or building complexes, with shared facilities and staff to carry out multi-purpose duties, can also achieve significant savings for private sector property developers. Commonly, such co-location of facilities also decreases the running costs of such establishments to the public purse over the long-term.

5.5 Planning contributions might also be used alongside other resources to provide multi-purpose facilities.

Contributions towards mobile library services

5.6 Where new development includes the provision of sheltered housing units, old people’s homes or day centres, planning contributions may particularly take the form of the extension of the mobile library service to the elderly (especially if such developments are not within the vicinity of a fixed-site library).

5.7 Occasionally, more than one way of meeting the mandatory standards of service provision will be identified; for example, the improvement of the mobile library in combination with an enhancement of facilities at fixed-site library nearby. Therefore, where the needs generated by a particular development proposal can be satisfied equally well by one or more alternatives, financial contributions will be sought towards the solution preferred by the council.

83

SPD – Contributions to Library Services

from Development

6 Practical arrangements

Timing of provision of financial contributions

6.1 The council will ensure that appropriate triggers are in place in any legal agreements to ensure that new or additional library provision is available on a timescale that realistically reflects the needs generated by development – in general, services should be in place upon the first occupation of new housing units.

6.2 Unless phased development is involved, all financial contributions should be provided on the commencement of development. In the case of phased development, the council will seek agreement to payments being made by the property developer in instalments (each instalment being due on the commencement of the construction of an agreed number of dwellings). On such major schemes, the developer will also be obliged to contribute to a feasibility study at a very early stage of the proposals, and to pay for the design work for any new facility. These costs will form part of the overall funding to be provided through a Section 106 agreement.

6.3 When a developer, in addition to financial contributions, is required to provide enhanced or expanded facilities or to transfer land to the council, it will be obliged to make the transfer at no charge to the council and ensure that it is free from financial ties for a specified period.5

Monitoring and project management

6.4 All Section 106 agreements will be logged and monitored and managed from the date of agreement until the full realisation of the funds owed. Developers should also note that there will be an additional contribution that will be required for this project management aspect of planning contributions administration (as described in the council’s adopted Supplementary Planning Document on Planning Obligations).

6.5 Particularly on large schemes, the council advises potential planning applicants to initiate early discussions about planning contribution issues as part of the pre-application process.

6.6 The council will revise this supplementary planning document as and when necessary.

5 The land, with planning permission for library services or unrestricted Class D1 use, must be fully serviced, and with access provided to the boundary to a standard specified by the council.

84

SPD – Contributions to Library Services

from Development

Appendix 1

Table A1: Public library standards (PLSS)

Criterion/Factor Standard to be Achieved

PLSS 1 – Proportion of households living within specified distance of a static library6

Standard for Outer London is 99% of population within 1 mile.

PLSS 2 – Aggregate opening hours per 1,000 population for all libraries

Standard is 128 annual hours per 1,000 population

PLSS 3 – Percentage of these libraries open more than 10 hours a week that have access to the internet (and online catalogues)

Standard is 100%

PLSS 4 – Total number of electronic workstations available to users per 10,000 population

Standard is six electronic workstations per 10,000 population

PLSS 5(i) – Percentage of requests for books met within 7 days Standard is 50%

PLSS 5(ii) – Percentage of requests for books met within 15 days

Standard is 70%

PLSS 5(iii) – Percentage of requests for books met within 30 days Standard is 85%

PLSS 6 – Number of library visits per 1,000 population Standard for Outer London is 8,600

PLSS 7 – Overall adult user satisfaction taken from PLUS Survey

Standard is 94%

PLSS 8 – Overall children’s user satisfaction taken from the PLUS Survey (this is also a Young People’s Plan target)

Standard is 77%

PLSS 9 – Annual items added through purchase per 1,000 population Standard is 216

PLSS 10 – Time taken to replenish the lending stock on open access or available for loan Standard is 6.7 years

6 Proportion of households living within a specified distance of a library, including those within ¼ of a mile of a mobile stop or one mile of “other service outlets”.

85

SPD – Contributions to Library Services

from Development

Appendix 2 – Key elements of Circular 02/05 relevant to social infrastructure

The draft circular greatly strengthens the opportunity to argue for the provision of additional educational facilities or other community facilities related to new developments. Paragraph B15 states:

If a proposed development would give rise to the need for additional or expanded community infrastructure, for example, a new school classroom, which is necessary in planning terms and not provided for in an application, it might be acceptable for contributions to be sought towards this additional provision through a planning obligation.

Maintenance payments are now explicitly acceptable:

Where justified, payment for the maintenance costs of providing services are now acceptable as part of S.106 funding. Paragraph B20 states:

…where contributions to the initial support (“pump priming”) of new facilities are necessary, these should reflect the time lag between the provision of the new facility and its inclusion in public sector funding streams…Pump priming maintenance payments should be time limited and not be required in perpetuity by planning obligations.

Pooled contributions and the cumulative effect of a number of schemes can be taken into account:

It is not just one-off, big developments that can have an effect on the delivery of services. A number of smaller schemes, when taken together, can have a significant effect upon the delivery of various elements of public sector services. Paragraph B22 states that:

…in some cases, individual developments will have some impact although insufficient to justify the need for a discrete piece of infrastructure. In these instances, local planning authorities may wish to consider whether it is appropriate to seek contributions to specific future provision…In these cases, spare capacity in existing infrastructure provision should not be credited to earlier developers.

Key elements of the London Plan relevant to social infrastructure

The Mayor’s London Plan regards communal and cultural facilities as key elements in making a successful, sustainable community function. Policy 3A.15 on the protection and enhancement of social infrastructure and community facilities explains that:

• UDP policies should assess the need for social infrastructure and community facilities in their area, including children’s play and recreation facilities, services for young people, older people and disabled people, as well as libraries, community halls, meeting rooms, places of worship and public toilets.

• Adequate provision for these facilities is particularly important in major areas of new development and regeneration - policies should seek to ensure that facilities are provided within easy reach by walking and public transport of the population that uses them. Indeed, the net loss of such facilities should be resisted.

Further, in paragraph 3.235, it goes on to state “Cultural facilities such as local theatres, tourist attractions and libraries are vitally important to all London’s town centres and central London”. Such facilities are especially valuable as a means of engaging younger people in wider community activities.

86

SPD – Contributions to Library Services

from Development

Barnet Council’s UDP

The council’s key priorities for planning obligations are as set out in Policy IMP1.

Policy IMP1 – Priorities for Planning Obligations

The council’s key priorities for planning obligations will be for the provision of:

• Residential Development: Improvements to public transport infrastructure, systems and services. Educational provision in areas with existing shortages of school places or

where the development will create such a shortage. Affordable or special needs housing to meet identified local needs. Where appropriate; highway improvements (including benefits for pedestrians

and cyclists), environmental improvements; the provision of open space; and other community facilities.

In applying Policy IMP1, the range of planning obligations will be a matter for negotiation between the council and the developer. The guiding principle in this respect is set out in policy IMP2 – Use of Planning Obligations.

Policy IMP2 – Use of Planning Obligations

In order to secure the best use of land, the council will seek to ensure through the use of conditions or planning obligations attached to planning permissions, that new development provides for the infrastructure, facilities, amenities and other planning benefits which are necessary to support and serve it, and which are necessary to offset any consequential planning loss which may result from the development.

Policy CS2 of the UDP explains:

Policy CS2 – Community and Religious Facilities – Planning Obligations

The council will seek to enter into planning obligations, where appropriate, in conjunction with new developments, to secure the provision of community and religious facilities.

The commentary notes to the policy states:

Community and religious facilities are an important local resource which supports the development of communities. Facilities include community centres, places of worship, meeting halls and club houses for youth and social groups. School halls may also be used out of school hours for community purposes, as addressed by Policy CS5 in this chapter.

The council recognises that there is a need for a range of community and religious facilities in Barnet to support the requirements of different ethnic, religious, social and interest groups in the borough. The council will monitor and review provision of community and religious facilities in the borough, and will encourage proposals for such facilities that meet identified needs.

[…]

Where new housing development creates a demand, where appropriate the council, will seek to enter into planning obligations with developers to secure the provision of community and religious facilities, or contributions towards their provision. Such

87

SPD – Contributions to Library Services

from Development

opportunities are likely to arise in connection with large housing or mixed use commercial development schemes.

88

SPD – Contributions to Library Services

from Development

Appendix 3 – Bibliography

Background documents and legislation

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and 1991

Department of Communities and Local Government, Circular 05/2005, Planning Obligations (2005)

Greater London Authority, London Plan - Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London (2004)

English Partnerships, Employment Densities – A Guide (2001)

Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, Quarterly Review of Building Prices (2006)

South East Museum, Library and Archive Council, Museum, Library and Archive Provision and New Development in the South East (2005)

Museums, Libraries and Archives South East, The South East Public Library Tariff (2007)

Department of Culture, Media and Sport, Comprehensive, Efficient and Modern Public Libraries (2001)

Department of Culture, Media and Sport, Framework for the Future: Libraries Learning and Information in the Next Decade (2003)

Building Futures [CABE and RIBA], 21st Century Libraries: Changing Forms, Changing Futures (2004)

Further sources of information

London Borough of Barnet, Unitary Development Plan (2006)

London Borough of Barnet, SPD – Planning Obligations (2006)

London Borough of Barnet, Libraries Museums & Local Studies Team Plan (2006)

London Borough of Barnet, Position Statement (2003)

London Borough of Barnet, Library and Information Services Policies and Standards (2002)

89

Appendix C

Contributions to Education SPD Summary of Responses Received During the Public Consultation

Item Respondent Section of

SPD Summary of Representation Council’s

Response Council’s

Recommendation 01 Nicholas

Taylor Associates on for of Jardine Marylebone Ltd.

General

It would greatly assist the appraisal of this SPD and its subsequent use if all paragraphs were individually numbered.

The Council agrees with the point raised. The SPD will be will paragraph numbered.

02 Nicholas Taylor Associates on for of Jardine Marylebone Ltd.

Section 2.2, P.7

The SPD fails to explain why religious schools have been excluded from the assessment of capacity. If they were included the resulting assessment might be very different from that given.

The analysis of capacity was made to guide property developers on those areas in which primary schools had some excess capacity at the time of publication, and for which an abatement from educational contributions might be negotiated. The council has concluded that In the context of Barnet – given the anticipated growth of the population – all property developers other than those putting forward schemes composed entirely of affordable housing units, must make contribute towards the cost of new educational provision.

The SPD will contain no analysis of school capacity.

03 Nicholas Taylor Associates on for of Jardine Marylebone Ltd.

Section 2.2, P.7

Despite there being 9% spare capacity in non-religious primary schools, the draft SPD concludes that it is still necessary for the council to regard all education demand as requiring additional school places. The case is simply not proven.

Educational institutions could not be expected to operate at 100% capacity as: • it is important to retain some surplus

capacity to enable parental preference and pupils’ choice to be exercised

• There is a need to cover for unforeseen fluctuations in the numbers of local children

As of May 2007, primary school surplus capacity was down to 7%. Circular 05/2005 has also recognised the issues in relation to spare capacity. It makes it clear that developers may be expected to pay for the

The SPD will contain no analysis of school capacity. All property developers other than those putting forward schemes composed entirely of affordable housing units, must contribute towards the cost of new educational provision.

90

Appendix C

Item Respondent Section of SPD

Summary of Representation Council’s Council’s Response Recommendation

future provision of facilities, the need for which may not be directly caused by their development.

04 Nicholas Taylor Associates on for of Jardine Marylebone Ltd.

We would suggest that where infant and junior schools have capacity it would be inappropriate to request contributions to primary schools from developers whose schemes are near those schools e.g. 10 minutes’ walking distance. The situation with regard to secondary schools is less clear-cut, given the wider catchment areas of such schools.

Please refer to Item 3 above. The SPD will contain no analysis of school capacity. All schemes except 100 per cent affordable housing must pay for educational provision.

05 Nicholas Taylor Associates on for of Jardine Marylebone Ltd.

Section 2.2, P.8

Large development proposals – where a developer might be required to provide an entirely new facility – are not defined.

It is not possible to define specifically what constitutes a “large” development proposal that will require a new school or other educational facility, since this will depend on the context of the development proposal. The council will insist on the new provision of educational facilities when the ‘tariff’ approach to Section 106 contributions does not address the direct impact of the development.

No change

06 Nicholas Taylor Associates on for of Jardine Marylebone Ltd.

Section 3.2, P.9

The section on circumstances where a variation may be made to the education contribution do not explain how great the variation may be, and again no definition of “major development proposals” is given. If it really is the case that the contribution may be reduced for major development proposals, then the guidance unfairly discriminates against small residential schemes.

It is not possible to define specifically what constitutes a “large” development (see above) but any abatement or variation of the educational contribution for large developments will be negotiated because greater sums of Section 106 contributions are required to mitigate other effects of the development (e.g. highways works). The direct impacts of very large or multi-site developments are such that a negotiated approach to a package of Section 106 financial contributions will be necessary but contextual to the proposal. Small

No change

91

Appendix C

Item Respondent Section of SPD

Summary of Representation Council’s Council’s Response Recommendation

residential schemes will incur the ‘tariff’ approach however.

07 Nicholas Taylor Associates on for of Jardine Marylebone Ltd.

Section 3.2, P.9

Although the levels of financial contribution per unit of affordable housing are very high, this section of the document, which offers developers an exemption if the council is given nomination rights to any affordable housing that is built, will give developers an incentive to choose the route. This will distort the affordable housing market.

There are already well-established reasons and policy mechanisms for the council to be given nomination rights over affordable housing built in the borough. These will be explained in the final version of the SPD. Because the council would anyway, therefore, obtain control over such affordable housing, no new distortion to the affordable housing market will be created. The introduction of a discount from the Section 106 contributions will be applied to all affordable housing units that are provided by developers, which will limit any artificial incentive for them to hand over nomination rights and therefore control to the council.

The council’s approach to securing nomination rights is legitimate and well-established, and is described in detail in the final version of the SPD. A discount of 75 per cent has been applied to the Section 106 ‘tariff’ to be levied on all affordable units.

08 Nicholas Taylor Associates on for of Jardine Marylebone Ltd.

Chapter 4, P.9

The SPD says funds may be used for feasibility studies and design work – this is not within the definition of capital expenditure.

Capital projects require feasibility studies, options analysis and project planning as part of the process.

No change

09 Nicholas Taylor Associates on for of Jardine Marylebone Ltd.

Chapter 4, P.9

Expenditure on ‘other’ multi-purpose facilities associated with educational use’ is extremely vague and could include facilities not connected with the proposed development.

Such services would only be provided on large developments where there is a possibility of having a multi-purpose building. The council would be bound by the terms of any Section 106 legal contract to ensure that the funds were ring fenced for proper expenditure only on education-related multi-purpose facilities.

No change

10 Nicholas Taylor Associates on for of Jardine

Section 5.2, P.10

Developers should not be expected to pay for monitoring and project management. This is not quantified in the SPD and effectively amounts to a

Monitoring of Section 106 legal contracts is essential to ensure both parties comply with them. The principles of monitoring and the levels of add-on fees, which are capped,

No change

92

Appendix C

Item Respondent Section of SPD

Summary of Representation Council’s Council’s Response Recommendation

Marylebone Ltd.

blank cheque to the council for paying further council staff.

are contained in the council’s adopted SPD on Planning Obligations.

11 Nicholas Taylor Associates on for of Jardine Marylebone Ltd.

Appendix 1, P.11

This level of educational contributions shown in the appendix per unit of affordable housing represent a large cost to developers and will act as a disincentive to their providing such housing. This will undermine the government’s objectives to deliver more affordable housing.

There is a convincing argument that the levels of Section 106 contributions required per unit of affordable housing will militate against its provision by property developers. The council has amended its proposals to discount the contributions required of affordable housing units.

A discount of 75 per cent has been applied to the Section 106 ‘tariff’ to be levied on affordable units.

12 Rapleys Consultancy on behalf of Coast and Capital LLP

Section 2.1, P.6

The source of data from the 2001 census, which form the basis of the document’s child yield data, requires further clarification and explanation.

There is no single ‘correct’ source of data on child yield. The draft SPD was based on statistical modelling conducted specifically on behalf of the council by an external consultancy. However, in order to utilise a more transparent, commonly-used and non-proprietary dataset, the final version of the SPD adopts the child yield data researched by the Greater London Authority.

Agreed. The source of these key data, which underpin the SPD, has been changed to that provided by the GLA.

13 Rapleys Consultancy on behalf of Coast and Capital LLP

Section 2.2, P.7

The document was unclear as to whether educational contributions would be sought from all new developments or whether they would be sought only in those parts of Barnet where there was an identified shortfall in school places.

This section of the document was clear – contributions would be sought from all new developments, but if there was a surplus of capacity in a particular location then a developer might be offered an abatement although this was not in any way a council commitment.

References to surplus capacity and potential abatements in this section of the document were confusing – these sections have been removed from the SPD to make it clear that all developers will be required to pay contributions in all cases and in all locations.

14 Rapleys Section 3.2, The SPD only recognised two cases The council’s view is that there is The council’s

93

Appendix C

Item Respondent Section of SPD

Summary of Representation Council’s Council’s Response Recommendation

Consultancy on behalf of Coast and Capital LLP

P.9 where an exception to the requirement for Section 106 contributions might be made, but neither of these related to economic feasibility.

generalised need across the borough presently for additional educational provision and that this would continue for the foreseeable future, and that therefore complex judgements about the viability of each development proposal were not applicable to Barnet.

approach is to offer property developers certainty – the fixed ‘tariff’ by type of unit for Section 106 educational purposes are given clearly in the document and can be factored into developers’ calculations. Only in the case of large developments is there any uncertainty as these major schemes are likely to require negotiated Section 106 agreements.

15 Natural England

General

The SPD does not affect any of the agency’s interests. It makes no formal comments.

No change

16 Natural England

Sustainability Appraisal

The Sustainability Appraisal report adequately assesses the likely significant environmental effects.

The council welcomes this support. No change

17 Natural England

Sustainability Appraisal

Broadly supportive of the sustainability objectives, especially Objective 10 (to maintain and enhance the quality of green spaces).

The council welcomes this support. No change

18 North Finchley LA21 Group

Paragraph iii, P.4

This paragraph mentions the number of new homes that will be built in the borough. Instead, the increase in actual population should be noted –

Barnet’s population projections frequently change and are often also disputed. The most correct and most recent forecast is the mid-year estimate from the Office for

Change made

94

Appendix C

Item Respondent Section of SPD

Summary of Representation Council’s Council’s Response Recommendation

often mentioned as high as 400,000 by 2016.

National Statistics, which is that the population would increase from 330,000 in 2005 to 366,000 in 2016. This has been quote in the final version of the SPD.

19 North Finchley LA21 Group

Paragraph 1.2, P.5

In this section on the council’s statutory obligations, allude to the potential for the Government’s raising the school leaving age.

The council agrees with this representation. Change made

20 North Finchley LA21 Group

Paragraph 2.1, P.6

In the first paragraph of this section, elaborate on the definition of “new housing” to clarify that it includes new builds, changes of us etc.

The council agrees with this representation. Change made

21 North Finchley LA21 Group

Chapter 2, P.6

Mention in this chapter that its provisions will be reviewed of the Government changing the statutory provisions on councils towards children.

The council agrees with this representation. Change made

22 North Finchley LA21 Group

Section 2.2, P.7

The section discussing school capacity issues – both constraints and surpluses – should allude to the Greenwich ruling.

Issues of capacity detracted from the clarity of the SPD. The council’s view is that all developers will have to make Section 106 contributions regardless of capacity issues in individual parts of the borough.

The entire section on school capacity has been deleted as irrelevant to the purpose of the SPD.

23 North Finchley LA21 Group

Section 3.1, P.8

Make it clear in the first paragraph of this section that Section 106 contributions will be required of house extensions.

If extensions create new units, developers will be required to make Section 106 contributions.

Change made

24 North Finchley LA21 Group

Section 3.1, P.9

Give the exact base date on which school capital build costs were based, and explain how inflation will be calculated on these cost figures.

The specific date of the build cost data is not given in the original Department for Education and Skills publication which reports on school build costs. Information on the council’s approach to uprating Section 106 costs is given in the council’s overarching Planning Obligations SPD.

No change

25 North Finchley LA21 Group

Section 3.1 In discussing the make-up of developers’ contributions, the SPD does not require any contribution

There is too much complexity attached to predicting and forecasting land requirements for new school places

No change

95

Appendix C

Item Respondent Section of SPD

Summary of Representation Council’s Council’s Response Recommendation

towards land costs for infill development, only in the case of large development schemes is the provision of land mentioned.

resulting from smaller and infill development (as opposed to large, site-based major schemes such as housing estates). The council’s role is to forecast school roles and make the necessary provision – it has determined that it can do this by recovering only the capital costs of education provision and has no need to also levy a financial contribution towards land except in the defined areas mentioned in the SPD (such as Cricklewod).

26 North Finchley LA21 Group

Section 3.2, P.9

The SPD mentions that where tenants occupy affordable housing to which the council has nomination rights, it is a fallacy to argue that no new additional children result, since the former housing which the tenants may have vacated will in turn be occupied by someone else.

This argument is predicated on an assumption that social housing tenants may move into new affordable housing and that their previous accommodation will be in turn be occupied, leading to a net population increase and net increase in the number of children. However, most social housing tenants move into affordable housing from temporary or sheltered housing which is subsequently not occupied by others.

No change

27 North Finchley LA21 Group

Section 5.1, P.10

Details should be given of how index linking of Section 106 obligations will be managed.

The details of payment triggers and index linking will be specified in each Section 106 legal contract. General principles of inflation uprating are contained in the council’s overarching SPD on Planning Obligations.

Allusion is made to the fact that index linking, as a principle, will apply.

28 North Finchley LA21 Group

Section 5.1, P.10

This section discusses cases where developers have to provide the council with land (large developments) for a school or other educational facility. It notes that such land should be without financial ties for seven years – but why this period?

Land provided for a school or other facility by a developer should be without any immediate ties or should have very long leases.

Change made

29 North Finchley LA21

Appendix 1 The data showing the actual values of the Section 106 contributions do not

There are data for the capital cost of new school places that are specific to Barnet.

Change made

96

Appendix C

Item Respondent Section of SPD

Summary of Representation Council’s Council’s Response Recommendation

Group show how they are adjusted for build costs that are distinctive to outer London or Barnet.

The amended SPD elaborates on this and describes in even more detail how the eventual level of the Section 106 contribution per unit was calculated.

30 North Finchley LA21 Group

Appendix 1 The data showing the actual values of the Section 106 contributions do not show how they are adjusted for build costs that are distinctive to outer London or Barnet.

There are data for the capital cost of new school places that are specific to Barnet. The amended SPD elaborates on this and describes in even more detail how the eventual level of the Section 106 contribution per unit was calculated.

Change made

31 North Finchley LA21 Group

Appendix 3 This appendix reproduced background policy guidance, such as extracts from the London Plan. It should have alluded to the exceptional context in Barnet as well – a large projected increase in population and the need for property developers of small schemes to contribute to land acquisition costs.

This appendix was for the reproduction of existing documents and guidance. Policy issues requiring discussion or subjective comment, such as the arguments for and against requiring land costs as part of a developer’s Section 106 contribution, had already been addressed in the main body of the SPD.

No change

97