State of Sutton - A Borough of Contradictions

i

The State of Sutton: A Borough of Contradictions

Foreword by Councillor Paul Scully

Leader of the Opposition, Sutton Council

A report on the successes and failures in different policy areas affecting the lives of Sutton residents. Summer 2009

i

Foreword by Councillor Paul Scully ii

Adult Social Services: Transforming The Hidden Service Which Can Affect Everyone 1

Crime, Antisocial Behaviour and Fear 25

Decent Homes: Raising The Bar In Public Housing 41

Education and Young People: Opening the Door of Opportunity to Local Children 55

Borough Wellbeing: Youth Provision, Sport and Leisure 79

Transport, Planning & The Environment: Broad Aims, Narrow Delivery 99

Council Culture: The Council of Contradictions 139

Introduction iv

Acknowledgements Undertaking the writing of a tome such as this is quite a daunting prospect. It was made very much less so by the assistance of the many council officers and people from Sutton’s various partner organisations, who gave their time freely in explaining the operations within their departments and the challenges that they face. As ever, they were professional in their approach. We never asked them to step over the boundary into party politics. They never once did. Tours of departments and field visits were organised and it was clear that they were rightly proud of what they were doing. Our policy group process is designed to be as party neutral as possible. We have our Conservative principles to apply to the issues, but we are keen to ensure that we are helping to build a Sutton for everyone. Therefore the input from people with a particular expertise or interest but not associated with any political party was invaluable. David Armitage is but one example. A local magistrate, junior football referee and active member of a popular church in Wallington, his extra input was vital. Similarly Mike Whalley, retired director of Microbiology at Great Ormond Street allowed us to ask questions that with our collective experience, we would not have considered. Jane Pascoe brought her considerable experience as a long-standing local chair of governors and educationalist. Finally, our thoughts have been put into words by the inestimable Jason Hughes, the Conservative Group’s Political Researcher. His meticulous research and patience has made this ambitious project come alive. The footnotes, a particular joy to him, are all his. Careful proof-reading saved his bacon on more than one occasion, but there’s bound to be a few mistakes. That’s the joy of sticking your head above the parapet.

Table of Contents

Table of Contents

ii

State of Sutton: A Borough of Contradictions

Foreword by Councillor Paul Scully, Leader of the Opposition, London Borough of Sutton

I moved to Sutton twenty-two years ago. In that time, I’ve moved to Carshalton, commuted to London and Brighton and worked from home. My two children went to local nurseries,

primaries and now two of the excellent secondary schools in Wallington. Like many residents in the Borough, I enjoy living here. The location is convenient, there are many good parks and it is an attractive place for people who want to raise a family. Only the most tribally loyal Liberal Democrat would disagree with the notion that Sutton could still be a far better place to live. Sutton Council benefits from some very hard working staff and it has become ever more apparent over the last couple of decades that one thing is missing from the jigsaw; a strong political leadership from the lead councillors elected to represent the Borough’s 180,000 residents. It is not enough to take what is given to us by the Council, paying ever higher Council Tax bills to do so and then gratefully tugging our forelock to our political establishment. Neither is it enough to simply want to manage the Council better than the current administration. Councillors are elected by residents of the Borough to set the strategy of the Local Authority, to

ensure that the Council reflects their wishes. We need to ensure that we have looked at all that is good and bad about the Council and what other Local Authorities are doing that might work in Sutton. This report is the start of that process. In “The State of Sutton: A Borough of Contradictions”, we have reviewed almost every area that the Council touches on, identifying the areas that need further investigation in order to develop a robust strategy to deliver a better service with value for money at the forefront of our minds. We are entering an austere period in local government. At a time when Westminster is abuzz with talk of giving Councils increased powers, the recession has meant that money is unlikely to follow. So, we need to find fresh thinking to do better with less. It may be that the Council is not the best organisation to deliver some services. For example, the relationship with the voluntary sector is strong in Sutton. It may be that we just need to be better organised to address these real concerns. The core overarching contradiction uncovered in this report is that Sutton has limitless potential for delivering a borough that is the subject of envy around London utilising our natural assets. These include the green characteristics of our suburban surroundings, the renowned excellence in our schools, our low actual crime rates, our proximity to London and our relative

iii

affluence. However the barrier to fulfilling this potential is the tired political leadership of the Council. Symptoms of this are shown in poorly thought out planning, degrading our suburban inheritance, the high fear of crime that reduces the quality of life for our residents, the ingrained inequalities of opportunities for resident pupils, the appalling state of our council housing and the gulf between the Council and local residents in communication. This document is also about forward thinking, meeting the challenges today and reaping the benefits tomorrow. For example, understanding why Sutton is well above the national average for young people with Special Educational Needs; meeting the challenges of transforming adult social care to promote independence rather than over-reliance, as one of the last local authorities to dismantle Victorian long-stay hospitals. All of these issues require bold and ambitious leadership and being open to new ideas, not gimmicks, not bluster but real commonsense action. There is plenty to build on here in Sutton. There are many examples of excellent innovative thinking in other local authorities. We do not need to reinvent the wheel. Boldness is very different from recklessness. There have been several times over the last couple of decades, when Sutton has sought to pioneer projects without due consideration. Fortnightly bin collections, gas-powered rubbish trucks and the £35 per bag green garden waste collection were all decisions that had to be reversed in a hurry at great cost to the taxpayer. The controversial £8.5million Sutton Life Centre risks being another project that is put in peril by pride rather than logic.

Not everything that the Council does is played out in the public eye. The green garden waste fiasco brought together thousands of people from different backgrounds. Contrast this to the delay to the building of Stanley Park High School that means that the new moderate autistic unit may not be able to take the first eight children in 2010. Assuming that they are educated out of the borough over their remaining seven years at school, the cost to the taxpayer will be more than a million pounds. Often, factors beyond the control of the Council can have a significant affect on the budget, such is the nature of local government finance. We need to be mindful of this as we address the issues of the day. Sutton Conservatives are ambitious for the Borough. The world does not stand still and we cannot preserve Sutton in aspic, yearning for days gone by. However, we must decide on the Borough that we want Sutton to be before we decide what policies to introduce and which initiatives and pressures that we should resist. This report is the first stage in tackling these difficult questions and I hope that the ensuing debate will highlight the benefits that have been seen elsewhere in London, and are long overdue here in Sutton. Councillor Paul Scully

Foreword by Councillor Paul Scully Leader of the Opposition, London Borough of Sutton

iv


Introduction Although we have tried to make this report as comprehensive as possible, we have not been able to tackle every issue within these pages. Whether it be whole topics, such as Street Cleaning or particular topical problems like the shortfall of school places in the Bor-ough, we take them just as seriously as the topics that made it into the book. We will con-tinue to work on them in the weeks to come in order to formulate effective solutions to the problems identified. Analysis has been as objective as possible. Politicians can debate our differences of opinion, it is a discussion document after all, but we hope that typing errors will be treated with caution. The grey boxes within the chapters are additional commentary. There is plenty of leeway as to what is commentary and what is narrative, but you will get the picture as you read on. Please do let us know what you think and join in the debate.

www.changesutton.org.uk [email protected]

1

The State of Sutton: A Borough of Contradictions Adult Social Services: Transforming The Hidden Service Which Can Affect Everyone

Adult Social Services: Transforming The Hidden Service That Can Affect Everyone

2


Introduction The Hidden Service Adult Social Services accounts for the second largest spend in Sutton Council at £71.2million.1 As a local authority, its social care function is an area of huge importance in the Council’s work. It is also an area of policy going through an era of very significant transformation, affecting the lives of many of Sutton’s most vulnerable residents. Yet it is a hidden service. It does not dominate local newspaper headlines, nor does it ride rampant in party political leaflets. It is not high profile and it is not glamorous. But it is vital to so many people. This presents a seemingly core contradiction in our ‘Borough of Contradictions’, as a low profile service of paramount importance to a significant number of people in the borough. Most people will need some kind of adult social service during their life whether through age, disability or intermediate care following hospital. Sutton should examine what more it can do to raise the profile of its hidden service. An additional contradiction might be that as a consequence of its low profile hidden service nature, many Sutton residents who are entitled to social services in this area may be missing out. This may be because people are unaware of their entitlements, lack sufficient confidence to access them, or may be too proud to ask for them through fear of stigma.

Sutton Council should examine how accessible its services are in this area. It should look at whether it is promoting the services residents are entitled to. Personalisation: The Independence and Empowerment Agenda Independence and choice in adult social care are core themes in the policy changes currently taking place. The 2005 Government Green Paper Independence, Well-being and Choice2 sets out a vision for maintaining the independence of the individual by providing greater control and choice over how their needs are met. In short, it is intended to be centred on the person. It also sets out to shape a vision for adult social services with an emphasis on preventing problems and ensuring that local authority services and the work of the NHS come together on a shared agenda. It also seeks to help maintain the independence of individuals and, notably, that any risks in attaining greater independence are shared with that individual and balanced against the benefits. In 2006, this vision was reinforced in the White Paper, Our health, our care, our say: a new direction for community services.3 This paper detailed the radical and sustained shift in the way in which services are to be delivered, ensuring that there is greater personalisation. It sets the goal of giving people a stronger voice so that service-users themselves are the major drivers of service improvement. These shifts in policy are to be welcomed because they aim to present high-quality

1. Figures from 2007/08, from total gross spends of £404.9million. 2. Department of Health publication, 21 March 2005. 3. Department of Health publication, 30 January 2006.

3

support, meeting people’s aspirations for independence and greater control over their lives, and also making services flexible and responsive to individual needs. As a local authority, Sutton is at the frontline of policy and service transformations. It is fortunate to have such hard working and dedicated staff in embracing this agenda, working to make it reality in the delivery of council services. Transforming social care carries a degree of risk but the rewards will be great. Promoting independent living means that the Council will have to become a ‘helping hand’ rather than a ‘crutch’. The Demographic Time-Bomb: Intelligent Commissioning ‘Commissioning’ is jargon for how Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) fulfil their duties to provide effective health and care services that meet the needs of the local population. It includes responsibilities ranging from assessing population needs, prioritising health outcomes, the procurement of products and services, and managing service providers.4 The pressures of commissioning on PCTs vary considerably. The United Kingdom’s ageing population has been described as a ‘demographic time-bomb’ in terms of the pressure it

will place on adult social services. Sutton is not immune to this. It is, in fact, on the frontline of dealing with the ‘time-bomb’. For example, the closure of long-stay hospital Orchard Hill, in Carshalton, has increased the number of adults with learning disabilities in community-based residential services, tailored to individual needs.5 Because of Britain’s ‘cradle to grave’ welfare system some people will need lifelong care services. Presently, 20% of Sutton’s budget in this area is for life long services and 80% is for adult social care services.6 With the elderly population rising, Sutton Council has a clear cost-imperative for fostering intelligent commissioning. This can cause frictions between what is termed as ‘need’ against ‘eligibility criteria’. The policy shift towards personalised services in the transformation agenda will inevitably have a knock-on effect as to how we commission our services. These are tough choices for any local authority. As the demographic time-bomb ticks and the policy ethos of social services modifies accordingly, smarter commissioning and the maximisation of value from tight budgets becomes critical. This should be viewed as an opportunity as well as a challenge. Commissioning should be seen as a vital tool in fostering greater independence and the delivering of the personalisation agenda.

4. A useful definition can be found at the Department of Health website, see: http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Managingyourorganisation/Commissioning/DH_865 5. Orchard Hill was home to over 100 adults with learning disabilities and formed the last of its kind as an old-style long-term care hospital. Some adults with complex needs remain in NHS care. 6. Figure provided by Mr Shaun O-Leary, Executive Head of Learning Disabilities, Adult Social Services and Hous-ing, Sutton Council. 17 July 2009.


4


Cherishing Our Voluntary Sector In A Post-Bureaucratic Era It has too often been the case that local authorities think that they are the only organisations in a position to deliver for elderly or vulnerable residents. Too often voluntary sector organisations succeed despite Sutton’s local political leadership, not because of it. They do not need to wait for Sutton Council committees, focus groups and consultations to come up with answers. They know what needs to be done and they just want to get on with the job. Voluntary sector organisations like the Sutton Centre for Independent Living and Learning (SCILL)7 and the Sutton Carers’ Centre (SCC)8 are critical. SCILL’s Sherwood Café in Collingwood Road is an excellent example of an extra facility, which is open to general public as well as service users. The flexibility of SCILL and its staff is obvious and their work is having a beneficial impact on the vulnerable adults who use their services, helping to develop skills, independence and confidence. SCC, in its own words, is there to provide “care for those who care for others”. This organisation works for and with carers in Sutton. It provides advice, activities, health and social events to enable carers to have a life of their own. The rise of voluntary organisations like SCILL and SCC signifies one of the last death knells to a ‘bureaucratic era’.9

We support the powerful contribution of voluntary sector organisations in this

area. Their work, often on shoestring budgets, complements the transformation agenda with the creativity and dedication that characterises the voluntary sector. As a local authority, Sutton must examine what more it can do to help our voluntary sector organisations to flourish. They are the engine room of Sutton’s community and without their input, the consequences would be disastrous for vulnerable residents, their families and carers.

First Contact With The Hidden Service The Access Team Behind closed doors in the Civic Offices, tucked away behind the scenes, lives ‘The Access Team’ call centre. This new team is the first point of contact for adult social services. They deal with issues at source or they ‘signpost’ them to other available services which do not require assessment. Calls might cover: • emergencies via Safe Call • requests for occupational therapy (OT)

adaptations to homes • assessments of need for adult social

services. Calls are entered into the Paris computer system. A breakdown of the types of calls handled by the Access Team are shown below in Figure 1. Over a three month period since April 2009, the volume of calls dealt with through first contact at source or signposted to other available

7. A registered charity, and part of The Princess Royal Trust for Carers, see: http://www.scill.org.uk/ 8. See: www.carers.org/sutton 9. We will examine the concept of the ‘Post-Bureaucratic Era’ and its significance for the London Borough of Sutton in the Council Culture chapter.

5

services has risen. Safe Call has also increased. The number of calls solved at source at first contact have increased from 68% to 72% from April to June. Although it is still early days and data is evolutionary, preliminary call volume data seems to indicate that as the Access Team becomes more established, its effectiveness in dealing with issues at source (without the need for signposting for other services) is increasing. The Access Team brings a more holistic approach to dealing with first contact social services calls so that different

service needs can be adequately logged, signposted and dealt with in different departments. OT and ICES11 (Integrating Community Equipment Services) forms the largest part of the Access Team’s referrals using the Paris system, as shown below. Figure 2 shows the trends from the older system which had duty desks (Social Worker First Contact, East and West District and Learning Disabilities). It shows an incremental decrease in the number of referrals in the East and West districts, and in OT/ICES, since the transition to a united Access Team. This coincides with

Access Team Calls June 2009

7%

40%

43%

10% Children SocialServices

Safe Call

Info and sign posting

Sign posted toassigned worker

Figure 1.10

10. Figures provided by the Access Team on 10th July 2009. 11. ICES is a Department of Health funded initiative across health and social care to develop community equip-ment services in England to remove unnecessary barriers for users and to modernise services.

Trends Analysis All Referrals Oct 08 - June 09

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Oct-08

Nov-08

Dec-08

Jan-09

Feb-09

Mar-09

Apr-09

May-09

Jun-09

First Contact

East

West

OT/ICES

Learning Disabilities

Figure 2.


6


the rise of calls being solved at source since April 2009. The OT/ICES services can help disabled residents stay in their homes after ‘crisis point’.12 It can include adaptations to the home such as handrails, a level-access shower, a stair lift or a ramp for wheelchair use.13 These early results are encouraging because the figures show that the amount of referrals is reducing in the East and West districts, as well as for OT/ICES referrals. This is happening concurrently with the increasing numbers of caller issues being solved at source – thus giving callers a quicker resolution to their issue. OT services are invaluable to residents. They help to maintain independence and residence in the traditional home. Performance data for OT end of month waiting lists also shows impressive improvements with the establishment of the Access Team (shown in Figure 3.).

The creation of the Access Team is a step in the right direction. It’s 96% ‘Good’ caller satisfaction rate is a reflection of the Access Team’s professional and motivated staff. Speedy resolutions improve the quality of life for residents in need of adult social services. Any measure which gives residents a quicker solution to their problem is good news.

The Hidden Service: Why Transform It? Demographic Time-Bomb Disposal The demographic time-bomb facing Britain is ticking. Our advances in healthcare, public health and society changes mean people are living longer. Expectations of what is needed to live a dignified and independent life have never been higher. Life expectancy has increased dramatically with the number of older people doubling since 1931. Between 2006 and 2036, the number of

2008-2009 Comparison of End of Month OT Waiting Lists

101 108

136

159 158

99

6045 43 39

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

Feb Mar April May June

Months 2008 vs 2009

Wai

ting L

ist N

um

bers

2008

2009

Figure 3.

12. This is a term used by social workers to define the point at which a vulnerability/disability takes place creating a social service need. 13. Useful definitions can be found here: http://www.independentliving.co.uk/ot.html

7

people aged 85 plus in England is projected to rise by 180%, from 1.055million to 2.959million.14 Current figures for Sutton show that 19% of the population is aged 60 plus. This is expected to rise to 21.8% in 2026.15 With an increasing part of the population living a lot longer, conditions such as dementia will rise, along with the number of children with complex disabilities surviving well into adulthood. The projected numbers of people aged 50 plus with learning disabilities is expected to rise by 53% by 2021.16 In Sutton, there is likelihood that the comparable rise will be higher because of the closure of Orchard Hill and Sutton’s above average percentage of young people with learning disabilities.17 Local authorities are having to change in order to meet the needs and aspirations of an ageing population, providing them with the best opportunity and support to live as independently as is possible. Depending on the individual’s level of need, the tailoring of services or ‘personalisation’ provides that it is preferable for people to live as independently as possible in their own homes. In turn, this also enables the maximum support and resource allocation to go to those with the greatest need. Personalisation has dual strategic imperatives; firstly, the effective use of resources and secondly, the promotion of independent living.

Dual Imperatives—Resources and Independence In diffusing the demographic time-bomb, let us first look at resources. Local government is already feeling the budgetary pressures; a recent survey from the Local Government Association (LGA) shows that a large majority of local authorities (84%) are facing additional costs for 2009-2010 as a result of demographic change, equating to an average of £1.715million per authority.18 Sutton faces the same challenges and is changing accordingly. The old system is simply unsustainable. Secondly, prevention is better than cure. Sutton Council’s ‘high level vision’ provides that ‘the emphasis should be on enablement and early intervention to promote independence rather than involvement at the point of crisis…To achieve this sort of transformation will mean working across the boundaries of social care with services such as housing, benefits, leisure and learning, transport and health.’19 The old social work concept of ‘Care Management’ is no longer deemed appropriate. The emphasis is now on people taking control of their lives through ‘self-directed care’. Thus with early signposting and prevention, people with needs will be able to avoid their crisis point and therefore find themselves better prepared for a needs assessment to maximise their independence.

14. Local Authority Circular, Department of Health. LAC (DH) (2008) 1, 17 January 2008, p.3. 15. Sutton and Merton PCT: Joint Strategic Needs Assessment, Nov 2008. 16. Ibid. 17. 7% of Sutton’s school population have a Statement of Special Education Need – above the national average of 3%. SEN Statements have a wide spectrum of needs, widely varying in severity and complexity. See: Reducing Reli-ance on Statements: An Investigation into Local Authority Practice and Outcomes, Anne Pinney, Audit Commission, (DfES Research Paper) 11 February 2004 18. LGA, April 2009. 19. High Level Vision for Personalisation in Sutton (Version 3.0), Adult Social Services and Housing, Sutton Council. Executive Report, December 2008.


8


The Green Paper, Our health, our care, our say: a new direction for community services, summarises personalisation as tailoring services to the needs and preferences of service users. The ‘overall vision is that the state should empower citizens to shape their own lives and the services they receive.’20 Service users can live their lives as they wish without the heavy handed control of old fashioned care management. In practice it means re-examining the relationship between the service user and Sutton Council as a service provider. Service users shape their own care model freed up from professionally devised care models. The person becomes the centre of the service. Service users will receive support from Sutton Council staff to design their own support and care arrangements based on that which suits them best. Care planning is therefore unified with the service users. This policy shift brings in directional control of resources by the service user. Direct payments and individual budgets are how service users will have that resource-based control over their care services. Direct Payments: An Empowering Alternative To Social Care? Sutton Council has a duty to administer direct payments under the ‘Community Care Services for Carers and Children’s Services (Direct Payments - England) Regulations 2003’. The guidance accompanying this item of secondary legislation states:

“The purpose of direct payments is to give recipients control over their own life by providing an alternative to social care services provided by a local council. A financial payment gives the person flexibility to look beyond ‘off-the-peg’ service solutions for certain housing, employment, education and leisure activities as well as for personal assistance to meet their assessed needs. This will help increase opportunities for independence, social inclusion and enhanced self-esteem.” 21

It is intended that the users of adult social services will become empowered by the use of direct payments, enabling them to choose, independently, what they will spend their budgeted money on. It is intended to reduce service users’ reliance on the professionals employed by the State to determine, in lieu of the client, what care services are required and how resources should be used. As stated above, this signifies a re-examination and a readjustment of the individual and the Council, as an organ of the State. The role of a local authority is shifted to that of a facilitator for services through the administration of direct payments. This philosophy is to be welcomed because it empowers individuals and forms a route to independent living. To use a term often used in political science, the terms of the ‘Social Contract’ are being rewritten. In reducing the reliance of service users on Sutton Council, the quality of life of its

20. Our health, our care our say. 2006 21. Direct Payments Guidance: Community Care, Services for Carers and Children’s Services (Direct Payments) Guidance England 2003

Personalisation: Sutton’s Route To Independent Living?

9

clients will increase because of greater independence and self-enhancement. The deprivation of liberty that can accompany the need for adult social services is therefore reduced. An individual’s need for adult social services should not deprive them of the opportunity and ability to live an independent existence. According to Sutton Council’s Direct Payments Policy,22 the following people are eligible to receive payments: 1. Older disabled people aged 16 years

and over who qualify for ‘Fair Access To Care Services’.23 Defined as people with any kind of impairment, and people disabled by illness (for example, this includes mental illness, arthritis and HIV/AIDS). The disability may be short-term as well as long-term.

2. Carers aged 16 and over who provide or intend to provide a substantial amount of care for someone aged 18 or over where the council is satisfied that the person being cared for is eligible to receive community care services. Carers may receive direct payments in respect of services to themselves but not for services in respect of the person they care for.

3. To be eligible for direct payments a person must be willing and able to manage direct payments (alone or with support) and must also be willing to set up a separate bank account for direct payments for audit purposes.

Sutton Council considers all applications for direct payments but currently people who are assessed as ‘Medium Low’24 or below on the Department of Health’s adult social care eligibility criteria are not eligible for direct payments.25 Clients with direct payments can choose to use them for a combination of services, for example direct payment for home care/personal assistants and the provision of a day centre place. Sutton Council assesses whether the allocation of direct payments to clients is at least as cost effective as the directly provided service otherwise arranged. For example, the long-term value will be considered in administering direct payments for home care to avoid higher residential costs. The dual imperatives of cost and independent living can be met by such long-term calculations. In keeping with the emphasis of choice and empowerment, Sutton’s clients can pool their direct payments. The assessment process for a direct payment is conducted through a normal assessment of need.26 This includes financial and risk assessments. This is followed by developing a written plan detailing care services designed to meet the identified needs of the client, accompanied by a discussion with them regarding the type of services they wish to receive via direct payment. Once the care plan is agreed, the level of direct payment is sought from a manager and then administered through the Adult

22. Direct Payments Policy, Adult Social Services and Housing, Sutton Council, Version 4, January 2009. 23. Fair Access To Care Services – Guidance on eligibility criteria for adult social care, Department of Health, 1 January 2003. 24. Ibid. See eligibility criteria, pp.4-5. 25. Direct Payments Policy, p.6. 26. Section 47(1) National Health Service and Community Care Act [1990].


10


Social Services’ finance team to the client’s separate or nominated bank account. The inclusion of the client in the assessment of direct payments is encouraging. After all, it is for their care. The rates of pay for personal assistants is set by the Council and reviewed annually. Personal assistants are employed by service users via direct payments. Specialist skills for personal assistants may be taken into account when setting remuneration rates on an individual service user basis. Round-the-clock respite care can be funded through direct payments but for not more than four weeks in any two-month period. Day services can be purchased via direct payments but permanent residential or nursing home services cannot. It is still early days for the direct payments scheme as a part of the personalisation agenda. Any scheme which promotes independent living to increase the wellbeing of clients with adult social service needs is to be encouraged. There are risks associated with independent living arrangements like direct payments. It signifies the removal of a ‘crutch’ to clients from a centrally planned and administered care plan and its replacement with a ‘helping hand’. This means that the Council and its clients should be risk aware, not risk averse. Independence carries risk but the rewards are great.

Case Study: The Kent Card, Kent County Council Conservative-run Kent County Council has embraced direct payments with the ‘Kent Card’. Working with the Royal Bank of Scotland, it has produced the card to administer direct payments for individuals thus removing the need for cash, bank accounts, cheques or any other paperwork. The Council loads the Kent Card with the agreed direct payments funds for the client. Kent Card holders can then top-up their card with any additional contributions.27

The Kent Card is VISA associated and can be used in over 20 million outlets world-wide and in nearly 850,000 in the United Kingdom, online and over the telephone. All Kent Cards are protected with Chip and PIN technology, which cardholders will be asked to use when making face to face transactions. It is also ‘RBS Secure’ in association with ‘Verified by Visa’, thus enhancing security online when making purchases with participating merchants.

27. Guide to Kent Card¸ KCC Administrator Guide Version 1, November 2007.

11

The card circumvents some of the problems associated with typical direct payments including complex and costly record keeping, the auditing of accounts and the difficulty and anxiety for some clients in opening and maintaining conventional bank accounts. The card provides an audit trail, giving the local authority greater structural control over the finances and seeing that funds are properly spent. It is easy for the client to use, and they can even nominate a secondary cardholder to support them in the use of the card. Cardholders experience reduced dependency on care managers to manage finances and care plan expenditure. The Kent Card scheme has notable benefits for individual cardholders. It is a convenient and secure method of receiving direct payments. The card reduces dependency and gives the individual choice and freedom over how their allocated money is spent. The scheme carries benefits to Kent County Council as the service provider. The use of the card, with its ease of access and convenience, has made direct payments more attractive to more people.28 With less paperwork, not only is bureaucracy reduced for the service user, it is also reduced for the local authority in administering the scheme. Sutton should look closely at this imaginative way of delivering the personalisation agenda to see what it can learn from the Kent Card.

Throwing Away The Crutch: Risk Aware, Not Risk Averse The public sector is often accused of being culturally risk averse. Recent research shows that public sector employees have a lower risk tolerance than their private sector counterparts.29 This is particularly the case when financial planning is at the heart of the service area in question. As the need for intelligent commissioning grows and cultural frameworks adapt in order to accommodate it, financial planning finds itself at the heart of the provision of adult social services in Sutton. The policy shift and service delivery changes in adult social services do not lend themselves to traditionally risk averse cultural predispositions in local government social care services. The fear of failure in traditional care services can paralyse much needed reforms and service improvements – in short, trying new things. Public services fail daily in a variety of different ways, for example, failure to prevent crime and the fear surrounding it, family breakdown, persistent unemployment and other social problems which face our community. But without an agreement among decision makers, political or administrative, to accept risk and take responsibility for bold decisions to improve our council-provided services, needed change will not take place as effectively as it could and should.30

28. Presentation made by Jean Penney, Project Manager, Independent Living, Kent County Council, to the Smart Card Networking Forum 2nd May 2007, Wolverhampton. 29. Evidence of lower risk tolerance among public sector employees, Michael J Roszkowski, John E Grable, Journal of Occupational and Organisational Psychology, Volume 82, Number 2, June 2009 , pp. 453-463. 30. See: 5.6 ‘Risk Aversion’ in A Strong Society: Voluntary Action in the 21st Century, Responsibility Agenda, Policy Paper No.5, Conservative Party, June 2008, pp.63-64.


12


A positive attitude to risk and decision making is at the heart of transforming our social care services. Even a Department of Health guidance document acknowledges that there is a need for a ‘good approach’ to risk in order to meet the personalisation agenda. Independence, Choice and Risk: A Guide to Best Practice in Supported Decision Making 31 says:

‘The governing principle behind good approaches to choice and risk is that people have the right to live their lives to the full as long as that does not stop others from doing the same. Fear of supporting people to take reasonable risks in their daily lives can prevent them from doing the things that most people take for granted. What needs to be considered is the consequence of an action and the likelihood of any harm from it. By taking account of the benefits in terms of independence, well-being and choice, it should be possible for a person to have a support plan which enables them to manage identified risks and to live their lives in ways which best suit them.’

The fear of failure has previously become paralysing in local government and it must not do so here in Sutton. The determination of elected politicians to avoid having to save face can cost the Council’s clients improvements to their services. In achieving the personalisation agenda, Sutton Council must have a realistic and proportional attitude to managing risk for its clients.

31. Executive Summary, 21 May 2007, pp. 1-2. 32. Local Government Circular (LAC DH 2008 1) & Our health, our care, our say (2006).

Assessments of need, under the National Health Service and Community Care Act, can carry life-long cost burdens as a consequence of a cradle-to-grave welfare state. In effect, one piece of paperwork can cost millions of pounds and can lock the client into a lifetime of dependence on the Council. There can be frictions between eligibility for services and real demonstrable need. At worst, an overemphasis on eligibility can inadvertently form a crutch to some clients and an aversion to the inevitable, yet healthy risks that come with more independent living. The Council should be a helping hand to the client wherever possible. It should ensure that the individual is risk aware, rather than risk averse, thus enabling them to shape their own destinies through independent living. The Council should lead by example and be risk aware rather than risk averse. Sutton is fortunate to have forward-thinking staff who fully understand the need to embrace personalisation and the helping hand rather than the crutch role for Sutton Council. In transforming social care services, there is a huge role for the market to play. Bureaucratic in-house care management services are not as competitive at driving down costs and promoting independence as flexible private sector market forces. The Government’s reform model32 highlights key roads for the implementation of the personalisation agenda, designed to achieve the goal of better care and support in adult social care, see Figure 4.

13

Shaping a flexible market for social care provision is a key to the personalisation agenda. It will enable greater choice for the independent client as well as helping to tackle the budgetary pressures which accompany traditional care management services. Low risk in-house care services are expensive. Managed risk through a more business-focused approach to adult social services can make significant savings as well as helping the client off the social services crutch. Intelligent commissioning will help to shape a strong, varied and flexible market in social care provision. A market-orientated business-like approach to the management of care services that uses choice and a consumer-based focus, can be used to drive up the standards of Sutton’s adult social care services.

Clients who are treated as consumers/customers will have the power of choice that they lacked with the old-style controlling model for social care under the care management culture. Often, when people find themselves coming to the Council for adult social care services it is a last resort. The point of crisis at which a need becomes clear has been described by frontline staff as akin to “bereavement”. The Council can achieve the aims of transforming social care at this point of bereavement by becoming a helping hand in utilising the benefits of a localised social services market and all the choices that it can bring. William Beveridge came to describe the attitude of the welfare state as giving a

Figure 4.


14


man with a broken back a crutch because all it sees is the limp.33 Sutton Council needs to throw away the crutch for as many clients as possible, and by mending the broken back of reliance, clients will need the crutch of care management less and less. A key obstacle to Sutton Council offering itself as a helping hand in the provision of adult social care services is breaking down the stigma attached to the service and communicating entitlement.

Promoting The Hidden Service: Tackling Stigma And Communicating Entitlement Whether we like it or not, adult social services is not always accessible to those who need it. For some, the service carries a stigma and many people are simply unaware of their entitlement to services. The language of social services has been described as having stigmatising content ‘embedded’ into its framework.34 Social stigma can prevent disabled people from claiming what is entitled to them through pride – particularly among older people – thus impeding care services and consequently having a negative impact on their quality of life. Staff surveys commissioned by the Council have found that many within and without Sutton Council feel that they do not know what is going on with the current pace of change. Clients and staff

33. William Beveridge, 1st Baron Beveridge, closely associated with the development of the welfare state. 34. Choosing Language: Social Service Framing and Social Justice, Dr. Colleen Vojak, British Journal of Social Work, (2009) Volume 39, pp. 936-949. 35. Social Care Focus Groups 2009, Research Report by Westminster Council, London Borough of Sutton, March 2009 – Executive Summary.

alike have said that despite Sutton providing a good service they feel “kept in the dark” with a lack of information being adequately disseminated in general.35 Inadequate communication with staff and clients can prevent the personalisation agenda from filtering down to those who would most benefit from its changes. If potential clients are not adequately made aware of their entitlement to social care services, they are not empowered as individuals. Empowerment is at the heart of the personalisation agenda. Both stigma and poorly communicated entitlement pose challenges to the accessibility to adult social services for residents. The Council must do all it can to break down stigma and to promote accessibility. The simplicity of messages can help to achieve this. Adult social care professionals in Sutton have told us that there needs to be simplification in how personalisation services are offered. As outlined earlier, the ‘point of crisis’, at which a disability becomes apparent and the need for care arises, can have much of the emotional hallmarks of bereavement. One professional at SCILL told us: “Learning of a disability is like a bereavement, and the last thing you need is a pile of booklets and paperwork to deal with.” The Council should therefore make this point of crisis as easy as possible to come to terms with and to overcome. Professionals working for Sutton Council and in the voluntary sector have told us

15

that jargon often scares clients and staff alike. The staff survey indicates that communication and briefings are needed on an increased scale. But we need to remember that these are trained, dedicated and experience staff who still find the jargon frustrating, so what about clients themselves? Jargon was even described by one very experienced voluntary sector worker at SCILL as a very real “fear factor” for clients. Home visits from care support officers provide information and explanation on services like direct payments, financial monitoring and ‘brokerage’ support. This kind of personalised service can also help to address some of the more daunting implications of personalisation for some clients, for example, the personal management of finances via direct payments. Some social services clients, many of whom will have been reliant on controlling care management, find it difficult to cope with such changes and will still require more traditional social services direction. The Council has to accept that to many residents, this truly is a Hidden Service. A significant number of people are simply unaware of what is available to them and as a consequence are unknown to the Council. One resident has told the Council: “A lot of people are just not known to social services at all, but badly need care.”36 The Council has put together a new Adult Social Services & Housing Information Pack for residents. The pack contains eight booklets explaining services such as Safeguarding Vulnerable Adults, Direct Payments, Fair Access, How to Get Help For Others, and Vision and Hearing Services. 36. Ibid, p.10. 37. The staff survey consulted over 100 staff and 25 external clients. The focus grounds are not designed to be statistically reliable but rather to produce a sounding board for ideas and for discussion.

This is a step in the right direction, but the Council should do more to make adult social care services more accessible to those who need them and to those who may be avoiding them through pride and fear of stigma. The Council must realise that such packs can be daunting and even intimidating to some residents, especially those coming to terms with their disabilities after their personal point of crisis. The Council needs to realise that there are many residents who need care but are unaware of its existence. In turn, the Council is unaware of the people who need care. It needs to look at better and more comprehensive ways of raising awareness of the availability of adult care services, thus improving accessibility. It should be noted, however, that it should be a safety net rather than a fishing net.

Transforming Social Care: The Views Of Staff And External Clients The Council’s personalisation staff survey provides valuable insight into how the transforming social care agenda has performed in the eyes of staff and clients.37 The key findings illustrate: • A lack of information in general. • Positive attitudes to change, but

practical examples are needed rather than just theory.

• Staff criticisms of correct implementation and uncertainties for job security.

• Staff would like more training. • More support needed from managers.


16


The majority of views expressed by staff indicated that there is a perception that the new policy arrangements will tailor the service more to the individual client and that the client would have greater control over his life, but that the sheer logistics of the agenda and how it would work in practice caused worry. There were some specific criticisms on how well briefed frontline staff felt they were on the personalisation changes, because it is frontline staff who will be facing questions from clients. Frontline staff need to be fully briefed on the personalisation changes. They are at the coalface of service delivery. They must be in a positive, informed position to handle queries from clients. Change Needed The survey found that the staff felt that despite Sutton Council providing a good service, change was needed. Many felt that bureaucracy was an issue, with one participant describing the situation as “a big muddle”. Another staff member complained: “They want us to spend a lot of time in an office-based situation rather than being with the service that needs your input.” 38 Target driven bureaucracy was seen as unhelpful, with staff favouring more emphasis on providing a good standard of social care instead.39 Experience of Change Staff members have mixed views on how changes had been carried out in the past and a degree of suspicion dogged the changes currently underway. A member 38. Staff Survey, p.3. 39. Ibid, p.4. 40. Ibid. p.4.

of staff said that Sutton had previously been “Not good at managing change. They don’t consult people who are at the frontline of change.” It was felt that information was not circulated effectively and that this impeded the creation of a consistent core message. One employee even went as far as to say that Sutton Council was “Disastrous on some changes.” Understanding Change The perception of poor communication means that some staff do not feel as though they know what is going on with the current changes. As highlighted earlier, they feel “kept in the dark”. One employee said:

“It seems very general. What the government has sent are these directions down and Sutton has to comply with them, but as far as I know that’s as far as I’ve got. I’ve got absolutely no idea the effect on me personally and that’s my biggest concern.”40

Some employees described themselves as “bewildered” at the changes and that some think that managers themselves don’t fully understand the changes. The views of staff are very important. They are the people spearheading personalisation on the frontline. Senior staff in the Adult Social Services and Housing department (ASSH) should look into holding regular or semi-regular focus groups, similar to those carried out by Westminster City Council earlier this year.

17

Staff concerns over their difficulties in understanding the changes are reflected in their concerns for service users. A care worker commented: “I’m not clear at the moment how its going to work for people that don’t have the capacity to manage their finances and to orchestrate their care plans.” Another said they thought there would be greater risk of financial abuse as a result of the personalisation changes. The concerns were primarily focused on older clients who may have built up many years of reliance on prescribed care management and would therefore find it difficult, if not distressing, to deal with some of the changes. The goals of the personalisation agenda are worthy and demonstrate a huge cultural shift in the provision of adult social care. But we need to remember that some clients will not adapt to the changes easily and that some are dependent on more directed care management. This is particularly the case for older residents. These different abilities to cope with change need to be ingrained into the Council’s work in this area. Frontline staff are telling us that not everyone can cope with independent living via the personalisation changes. External Clients The general opinion of surveyed external clients placed an emphasis on the link between the quality of care provided and training. Some clients thought that changes were being made because of financial implications rather than an increase in provision.41 From the client perspective, there was a feeling that the

changes had not got off to a very good start and that more needed to be done to understand more about certain groups, for example older people, so that changes can be shaped around these needs. This is an important element of the personalisation agenda. The goal is for person centred care plans. Understanding the needs of certain groups is essential. Similar to our suggestion with staff, the Council should look into regular, planned social care focus group exercises to evaluate clients’ perceptions and experiences of personalisation changes. This can be used as a type of ‘market testing’ for services in the development of a flexible, varied and strong local market for adult social care services. Every decent business knows its customer base. With the Council acting as a helping hand through the provision of direct payments and Individual Budgets it should use direct communication with clients, through focus groups to understand priorities. This will then enable the Council to shape a strong local market according to these needs.

41. Ibid, p.10.


18


The Second Hidden Service: The Voluntary Sector Case Studies There is a second Hidden Service in the world of adult social care in Sutton. The voluntary sector is often out of the public eye, but works tirelessly to provide support services to adults with social care needs and those who live and work with them every day. Many of us will never encounter their services, but for a significant number of residents they form a life-line. Sutton is fortunate to have such a vibrant voluntary sector as the beating heart of our borough’s civil society. The British tradition of voluntary action is strong in Sutton. The Sutton Centre for the Voluntary Sector (SCVS)42 is an organisation which we can all truly be proud of. SCVS works to promote a innovative and effective voluntary sector in our community. Two voluntary sector organisations, in particular, are having a very real impact for adults with physical and/or learning disabilities, these are Sutton Centre for Independent Living and Learning (SCILL) and the Sutton Carers’ Centre (SCC).

Case Study: Sutton Centre for Independent Living and Learning (SCILL) SCILL was set up in late 1994 by Sutton Council, following consultation with disabled adults who asked for a centre which would promote independence

42. See: www.suttoncvs.org.uk

rather than a traditional day centre. In 1996 it became fully independent as a registered charity. Since then it has flourished from only providing day services, to providing numerous services designed to help people with disabilities live full and independent lives. The Centre provides courses and activities for disabled local residents to achieve personal goals, and encourages them to learn new skills to gain independence. Courses and activities include computer classes, a fully accessible gym, individual cooking sessions, creative expression, craft, pottery and art. SCILL offers a comprehensive range of support, including a payroll service and a financial administrative service (FAS) for people who find it difficult to open a bank account, or those who choose not to handle the finance side of direct payments. It offers a Person Centred Planning (PCP) service. Several Sutton Council employees work with people with learning disabilities to help shape achievable plans for the future, in order to realise goals and aspirations through structured plans. Representatives from the Conservative Group have visited the centre in Robin Hood Lane. What they saw was highly impressive. They met Charlie, a man with learning disabilities, who himself volunteers at the SCILL-run Sherwood Café. Charlie serves tea and coffee to customers and helps out in the kitchen. The café is open to disabled adults as well as members of the public and it was clear by the volume of customers that it was popular. In the 2nd quarter of 2009 the café has turned a £3000 profit.

19

Councillor Paul Scully met members of the PCP team who told him that the new ‘personalised’ planning model had achieved excellent results. One member of staff told Paul how one of his clients had ‘woken up’ after spending literally years of sleeping through his day services in the corner. Now, through PCP, he was awake and alert with a plan to realise his personal aspirations by learning skills to foster his own independence. The transformation was described as “amazing”. Conservative visitors also saw a painting class in progress with adults enjoying the supervision of trained staff in painting and etching. It was obvious that the staff at SCILL are deeply motivated and enthusiastic about what they do. It was disappointing that some staff members told us they felt much more could be done by the Council to break down “bureaucratic barriers and red tape” for example, the heavy use of jargon and overly technical and formal meetings, in order to help SCILL to work closer with the Council. Staff members told us that they felt as though they were outsiders at some meetings because of the use of impenetrable jargon. In short, SCILL is the voluntary sector avatar of the personalisation agenda. SCILL provides an invaluable service to the people of Sutton who need their help; they do so on shoestring budgets and on their own initiative. The least the Council can do is to live up to its partnership working credentials and make meetings more accessible for this jewel in our voluntary sector crown.

Case Study II: The Sutton Carers’ Centre (SCC) The definition of a carer is someone who, without payment, provides help and support to a friend, neighbour or relative who would otherwise be unable to manage because of frailty, illness or disability. Most carers would not recognise themselves under the term 'carer'. They are just people trying to cope as best they can while helping to look after someone who needs their help. This is where SCC steps in. The stated aim of SCC is to ‘care for those who care for others.’ It can often be the case that carers have an undiagnosed and unrecognised need for care themselves. SCC provides advice, activities, and social events to help carers live a life of their own. SCC provides carers, young and adult, a place to go with voluntary sector professionals to talk to. During a visit to the Centre in Benhill Avenue, Councillor Scully met a carer who had come to SCC for advice. The carer had reached her breaking point because her husband’s alcoholism had recently deteriorated. She was her husband’s carer despite being wheelchair bound herself. SCC advice, information and support services cover a wide range of topics including money matters, assessments, aids and adaptations, carers’ respite and much more. SCC has a Young Carers Service Manager who provides a focus on young carers too. The Centre also runs a free benefits check service to see that carers and their ‘cared for’43 are receiving


43. The term for the disabled person cared for by the carer.

20


the right levels of financial support. A welfare benefits specialist from the Citizens’ Advice Bureau is available at the Centre weekly to advise carers of their entitlements.

As has been outlined earlier in this chapter, too often residents fail to claim their entitlements either through a lack of awareness or through stigma. The SCC staff have shaped a comfortable and understanding environment for carers to seek advice. Unclaimed benefits like a carer’s allowance, disability allowances, pension credit, council tax benefit, income support, housing benefit and working tax credit can make a real difference to the quality of life for the carer and the cared for. SCC make a large contribution to the quality of life of carers and consequently those receiving care in Sutton. However, we still do not know how many carers are unfamiliar with the SCC and the helpful services it provides, and how many carers are simply missing out.

Case Study Conclusions: Voluntary Sector The Engine Room of a Post-Bureaucratic Approach Our look at the voluntary sector in Sutton has not been all-pervasive but, instead, has been an attempt to show that the hard work of our voluntary sector is the engine room of Sutton’s civil community. Conservative Leader David Cameron has said that the ‘old politics’ of controlling centralisation and “bureaucratic neatness”44 is simply not working. He is right. In May this year he set out his vision for a wholesale re-examination of how we approach voluntary action in our public services and the relationship of the State accordingly. He wrote:

‘[T]he argument that has applied for well over a century – that in every area of life we need people at the centre to make sense of the world for us and make decisions on our behalf – simply falls down. In its place rises up a vision of real people power. This is what we mean by the Post-Bureaucratic Age. The information revolution meets the progressive Conservative philosophy: sceptical about big state power; committed to social responsibility and non-state collective action. The effects of this redistribution of power will be felt throughout our politics, with people in control of the things that matter to them, a country where the political system is open and trustworthy, and power redistributed from the political elite to the man and woman in the street.’ 45

44. Speech made by The Rt Hon. David Cameron MP, 12 May 2008. 45. A new politics: The post-bureaucratic age, The Rt Hon. David Cameron MP, The Guardian, Monday 25 May 2009.

Sutton Carers is one of 144 carer centres across the UK, part of a network created in 1991.

21

Strengthening a vibrant voluntary sector – as enshrined in the laudable aims of the Sutton Centre for Voluntary Services – is real people power for Sutton. It signifies a shift from the inflexible notion that we have to wait for our local council or a government department to give us the solutions to problems. Volunteers dealing with vulnerable adults know what the problems are and they know what they need to tackle them. The concept of moving out of a bureaucratic era of top-down administration has particularly strong ramifications for the provision of adult social services in Sutton. A strong and vibrant voluntary sector is a key component in delivering the personalisation agenda. The Council works in partnership with the voluntary sector in this area but feedback received by us indicates that the institution of the Council is somewhat impenetrable in some areas and that, for example, the scrutiny process is not as accessible as it could be.

Nationally, the Conservative Party has stepped up its commitment to the voluntary sector and its enormous contribution to the provision of services on behalf of local government. The Shadow Charities Minister has announced that a Conservative Government will enact reforms to radically cut bureaucracy and to allow voluntary sector organisations, which are charities, to make a profit from public sector contracts.46

It is clear that a reduction in bureaucracy and the ability to turn and retain a profit would be a valuable tool for Sutton’s adult social services-based voluntary sector.

It is our contention that there is more that the Council can do to help the voluntary sector. There has been talk of a ‘Voluntary Sector Hub’ for some time, but this proposal has not come to fruition. Conservative-run Thurrock Council provides such a hub, called The Beehive Centre. Such a hub would bring most, if not all, of Sutton’s voluntary sector organisations under one roof. At present organisations are sprinkled over many different venues across the borough in an uncoordinated and haphazard way.47 The preference is for geographic hubs of activity to have shared premises. Once again, the Conservative Party has shown its commitment to increasing the strength of the community and voluntary sector through more devolved control of ‘community assets’. A voluntary sector hub in Sutton would be such an asset. The Council should look at whether it can provide such a site with a low or peppercorn rent. The Carers’ Centre, for example, would benefit from such an arrangement, as would others paying market rents.48 A hub, bringing all services under one comprehensive and accessible roof, would not only benefit the financial viability of our voluntary sector organisations, but would be a key way for Sutton Council to show its appreciation of the work they do.

46. Speech made by the Honourable Nick Hurd MP at a Russam-GMS hosted event, Wednesday 13th May 2009. 47. Building effective local VCS infrastructure: the characteristics of successful support for the local community and voluntary sector, Final Report, Rob Macmillan, Sheffield Hallam University, June 2007, p.4 48. This is a problem identified by the Quirk Review. See: Making assets works: The Quirk Review of community management and ownership of public assets, May 2007.


22


Conclusion Most people will need some kind of adult social care at some point in their lives. In Sutton, the cost of providing these services is eclipsed only by one other budget - education. For many, social care is a Hidden Service, but for some it is very visible and vital to their quality of life. This report has sought to outline some of the challenges posed by the United Kingdom’s demographic shift to an increasing ageing population. The old-style controlling care management model for adult social services is simply unsustainable for the future, both in financial terms and that of hindering independent living. The contradiction in the expensive care management model is clear: despite the noble intentions of the care model it actually hampered the welfare-maximising opportunities presented by greater independence through overdependence. Some vulnerable adults were not given sufficient flexibility and freedom to make key choices over their own destiny. As argued throughout this report, we welcome the liberty-enhancing potential which personalisation gives clients. Nationally, this area of policy is being transformed. Some have even described the transforming social care agenda as a kind of “liberation”.49 Staff from the Council and the voluntary sector have already told us that this is making a real difference to the quality of life for clients.

Direct payments are giving service users a tool to shape their own care and purchase the services that they want, when they want.

Of course, there are teething problems and there are risks involved but staff and client surveys show that service users, on the whole, want the fundamental freedom to choose the best care and services for themselves – and frankly, who better to make those decisions? Moreover, we are told that some clients have embraced the changes and are using them in very creative ways. We have also been told that older clients are more likely to be daunted by the changes and we need to tailor our approach accordingly. Not everyone is equipped to deal with independent living and the Council must reflect that. Personalisation offers a solution to the dual imperatives of meeting the demographic shift (and the budgetary pressures it presents) and maximising the freedom of the individual through person centred planning to meet needs. Kent County Council, for example, has been highly creative and successful in their application of the changes with the

49. Liberation Welfare: Imagining welfare without dependency, Barry Macleod-Cullinane (Portfolio Holder for Adults and Housing, London Borough of Harrow).

Independence and choice can lead to a real improvement in quality of life.

23

Kent Card. The London Borough of Harrow has embraced the changes and boasts 20% of London’s Direct Payment users.50 We should examine what other local authorities are doing in this area to collate best practice models. We wholeheartedly support the work of all staff, within and without the Council, who are implementing this change agenda. From the Access Team as the first point of contact, through to council officers working in the PCP section at SCILL.

Improvements in communication between senior staff at a strategic level and those on the frontline can and must be made. Independent living is more than just a concept, it is a quality of life-enhancing opportunity for Sutton’s adult residents with physical and/or learning disabilities. We need to address the contradiction that has reared its head here: staff are working hard to implement these changes but they do not feel adequately briefed, with some describing their situation as being left “in the dark”. Regarding communication, this report has also expressed concern over the accessibility of the Hidden Service. We have concerns that the traditional language of social services still carries stigma for some and that as a consequence residents are not taking up

their entitlements, thus negatively impacting on the quality of life. This presents a contradiction; the services are there but many are not taking them up, either from a lack of awareness or the risk of perceived stigmatisations - despite needing help and support. The Council has taken steps to make the Hidden Service more accessible, but it could still do more to shape easy to understand messages to promote the service and residents’ entitlements to it. Our case studies have looked at the voluntary sector in Sutton. Our view is clear on the topic: we are very lucky to have such a strong voluntary sector. In promoting independent living and providing support to carers they are truly invaluable. But are we doing enough to support them? The Council should seriously look at more ways it can assist the voluntary sector by helping them to promote their work, thus raising awareness and increasing accessibility. The concept of a voluntary sector hub can help to achieve this, especially with favourable rent from the Council. Sutton Council owes this sector a debt of gratitude for the excellent services it carries out. Sutton’s Hidden Service is being transformed, and the changes are ambitious. Sutton Council should be equally ambitious for our residents in helping them to shape their own lives free from overdependence on traditional Council-directed controlling care management services. There are no limits to what can be achieved.

50. Ibid, p.3.


“ We welcome the liberty-enhancing potential which

personalisation gives clients.”

24


25

The State of Sutton: A Borough of Contradictions Crime, Antisocial Behaviour and Fear

Crime, Antisocial Behaviour and Fear

26


Introduction Wherever you go, crime and antisocial behaviour is consistently a top priority for residents. Unsurprisingly, this is the case in Sutton too. In comparison with other London boroughs, Sutton has a relatively low crime rate, according to official figures, but, as will be explored later, this does not collate with the fear of crime in the borough. Sutton, an outer London borough, is also low on the Metropolitan Police Service’s priority list for manpower and resources. Met figures in Figure 1 show that Sutton has the third smallest police force out of the 33 London boroughs. As in other areas of policy, Sutton is a borough of contradictions with issues surrounding crime, antisocial behaviour and the perception of community safety. According to official figures crime rates are low but the fear is high. The majority of Sutton residents do not feel safe. Local Conservatives contend that:

289.93

305.2

320.22

352.97

360.61

0 100 200 300 400

Kingston upon Thames (population 157,900)

Richmond upon Thames (population 180,000)

Sutton (population 185,900)

Bexley (population 222,100)

Bromley (population 300,700)

Police officer strength

London Boroughs

Five smallest Met Police forces in Greater London Police Officer Strength

Figure 1.1

• Perception and reality on crime and antisocial behaviour are disjointed.

• Constant reassurances from the Council, the local police, and the Safer Sutton Partnership do not make local people feel any safer.

In order to tackle this issue we have to understand why there is such fear of crime. Policing used to be about bobbies on the beat, catching criminals and keeping an eye on the neighbourhood through community policing. That is how it was, and that is how people want it to be. In reality, policing across the United Kingdom is constantly changing according to social, political and governmental priorities. Because Greater London has the largest police force in the country, nowhere else can this change be more visible than with the Metropolitan Police. As a constituent part of the Met, Sutton has also been at the forefront of change in policing.

1. For a full list of Police Officer and PCSO Strength in the Metropolitan Police Service of end of November 2008, see: http://www.mpa.gov.uk/downloads/issues/police-numbers/police-numbers.pdf

27

The Safer Sutton Partnership In 2005 Sutton became home to a unique organisation called The Safer Sutton Partnership Service (SSPS). The SSPS is a joint enterprise between Sutton Council and the Met. The Head of the Safer Sutton Partnership brings police officers, police civilian staff and council officers together into a ‘single structure’. The current Head of SSPS is a police superintendent who functions as both a police officer and a council officer. These dual roles work well, bringing the managerial expertise of an experienced police officer together with the skills of a civil servant, as a council officer. This is especially the case given the fact that the post manages the following areas (though this is not an exhaustive list): • The Police Safer Neighbourhood

Teams for each of the 18 ‘Wards’, known as SNTs.2

• Drugs and Alcohol Action Team. • Two Safer Parks Teams (SNTs for parks

and open spaces). • Antisocial Behaviour Unit. • Police Licensing. • Schools and Youth Crime Unit. Partnership? What is it? And what does that have to do with policing? Sutton Council is keen to emphasise its ‘partnership’ culture, and the SSPS is a good example of this. ‘Partnership’ is local government jargon for a

Where We Are Now, The Mechanics of Community Safety: Safer Sutton Partnership & Safer Neighbourhood Teams

combination of organisations working co-operatively across the private, public, community and voluntary sectors. Partnership working is keenly promoted by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG).3

The relevance of ‘partnership’ is not immediately clear to people outside local government, who will be unfamiliar with the jargon. The SSPS can improve accountability in policing priorities, because the Head of SSPS reports to the elected councillor with responsibility for community safety. But is this communicated effectively to residents? No, because the majority of residents are totally unaware of this accountability structure. The SSPS police/council partnership claims it has delivered improvements, but does it make residents feel any safer? Figures and research suggest otherwise. It is obvious that the majority of the public do not care how policing and community safety priorities are delivered as long as the job gets done. ‘Partnership’ working and the SSPS arrangement means little or nothing to most people outside of Sutton’s police stations, SNTs, and the council offices. There appears to be a contradiction here. ‘Partnership’ doctrines imply greater co-operative working with the public and

2. A ‘Ward’ is an administrative area within a London Borough. Typically they will take their name from the local area, for example: Cheam, Carshalton South and Clockhouse, Worcester Park, etc. A rose tinted description of Council Wards can be seen here: http://www.sutton.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1490 3. For an account of ‘partnership’ in local government, see: http://www.communities.gov.uk/localgovernment/performanceframeworkpartnerships/localstrategicpartnerships/


28


other organisations to deliver on local priorities for local improvements, but is this evidenced? Also, what evidence can be used to measure the success of Sutton’s efforts in community safety? It is our view that measurement of the fear of crime is a key indicator. Safer Neighbourhood Teams: Bobbies back on the beat? In April 2004 the Metropolitan Police began establishing ‘Safer Neighbourhood Teams’ in each of the 624 electoral wards in London. Each SNT typically consists of one police sergeant, two constables and three Police Community Support Officers (PCSOs).4 The SNT model is an attempt to recapture a local policing ethos with known officers policing a specific area, much in the old style of foot patrols in localised areas, ie ‘neighbourhoods’, perhaps reminiscent of the idealised local policing featured in the BBC television series, Dixon of Dock Green. The Met itself describes the SNT model as: “A truly local policing style: local people working with local police and partners to identify and tackle issues of concern in their neighbourhood.” 5 Highly visible localised policing has long been popular with the public. Research carried out by Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary has shown that 70% of surveyed residents think regular foot patrols and dedicated local community policing will have the greatest impact on crime and antisocial behaviour.6

Throughout the 1960s the nature of localised community policing was radically altered with the introduction of ‘Unit Beat Policing’ and the greater use of patrol cars, and radio communication to centralised control rooms. The catalyst for this process began during the 1950s in the Met, with expanded use of patrol cars over foot patrols, being implemented by Sir Harold Scott.7 The view at the time being that patrol cars could cover a wider area than the traditional foot patrol, which was increasingly being viewed as too demanding on manpower.

The shift continued and marked the near eradication of the traditional ‘bobby on the beat’ by the 1970s, in favour of ‘rapid response’ patrolling police cars. By the 2000s the introduction of the SNT model for policing can be seen as a response to

4. ‘About Safer Neighbourhoods’ see: http://www.met.police.uk/saferneighbourhoods/about.htm 5. Ibid, see FAQ: http://www.met.police.uk/saferneighbourhoods/faq.htm 6. Narrowing The Gap: Police Visibility And Public Reassurance – Managing Public Expectation And Demand, HMIC Thematic Inspection Report to the Scottish Executive, (Dec 9 2002) 7. Sir Harold Scott was Commissioner of the Police of the Metropolis 1945–1953. He was a civil servant with no previous military or policing experience. This was untypical at the time, with many Commissioners having been drawn from military and policing professional backgrounds.

A visible police presence is a high priority for residents

29

the increasing public criticism that the police are not visible or accessible.8 Figures provided to the Police Federation from the Audit Commission, from a survey on police performance, show that 80% of residents said that they were dissatisfied with the levels of local policing in their area. In Sutton, as with elsewhere in London, each ‘Ward’ has an SNT which typically has one sergeant, two constables and three PCSOs. There are exceptions with some of Sutton’s wards having four or five PCSOs. For example Beddington South and Wallington South both have five PCSOs in their SNTs.9 Sutton South Ward has one less constable than most other Wards, although it has four PCSOs, leaving it with only two full time police officers with full powers. Some of these fluctuations and variances can be accounted for because officers move on and replacement and recruitment is pending. It is therefore accurate to say that some areas in Sutton have better police provision than others. It should be noted that PCSOs are not warranted police officers with the same powers as regular police officers. They were introduced by the Police Powers Act [2002] to work with the police, with the same powers of arrest as any normal citizen. Home Office guidelines provide

that the PCSO role is intended to be largely non-confrontational.10 Unlike regular police officers their powers cease once they are out of uniform. Given the limited powers of PCSOs the public must not be mislead into believing that SNTs are fully comprised of regular police officers with full powers.11 The officer complement of Sutton’s SNTs should not be misrepresented to residents. There should be a demarcation between warranted police officers and PCSOs. It is important that residents are given clear and unambiguous information about their local police force and its powers. Back on the Beat: Community Intelligence in Policing? SNTs, among other things, are an attempt to recapture the traditional ‘community intelligence’ model for local policing. It is aimed to give the framework for police officers with their ‘ears to the ground’, armed with a strong information network and connectivity with local residents, in order to understand the neighbourhood which they police. If the SNT model is to succeed then local knowledge is key. This is the return of ‘community intelligence’ as a vital ingredient for policing and Sutton is a part of this change.12

8. Figures used by the Police Federation as some of the background for the use of Special Constables, see: http://www.polfed.org/FederationPolicy_Special_Constabulary.pdf 9. A full list can be seen at: http://www.met.police.uk/saferneighbourhoods/boroughs/sutton/saferneighbourhoods.htm 10. See: http://police.homeoffice.gov.uk/community-policing/community-support-officers/ 11. It should be noted that opinion is divided on the use of PCSOs as salaried uniformed officers working alongside the police. Some have claimed that the money could be better spent elsewhere, whilst others consider them to be a valuable visible police presence. 12. Innes, M. and C. Roberts (2007) ‘Community intelligence in the policing of community safety’, in J. Warren, E. Hogard and R. Ellis (eds.) Community Safety: Innovation and Evaluation. Chester: Chester Academic Press


30


The return of focus to localised policing based on ‘local knowledge’ is to be welcomed. Intelligence gathering is an essential tool in combating crime and antisocial behaviour. Each area has a ‘Ward Panel’ which aims to feed local priorities into the policing plans for each area. They are public panels and reviewed on a quarterly basis. The Sutton Community and Police Forum (SC&PF)13 also operates as a public forum for policing matters, with non-members of the committee invited to ask questions of senior police officers on policing matters. SC&PF is an evolution of a committee set up as a recommendation from Lord Scarman’s report into the Brixton Riots. It is intended to provide ‘effective consultation’ between the police and public. SC&PF meetings have the potential to be a valuable forum but they are generally poorly attended by members of the public. Some members have described the SC&PF as a “talking shop” which gets “little if anything done”. Like many other council committees and forums, just because they are public does not mean they will be well attended. i-NSI: Knowledge is Power

Sutton is also a part of a research project being run by the Universities’ Police Science Institute (UPSI).14 The ‘Intelligence Through Neighbourhood Security Interviews’ (i-NSI) project is an intelligence-gathering model currently being trialled in the Lancashire

Constabulary, by Manchester Council, and in the London Borough of Sutton via the SSPS. Professor Martin Innes is the Director of the UPSI. The methodology for this intelligence-gathering project is for SNT officers to interview members of the public in their homes using laptop computers. The laptops have special software with questions designed to identify the ‘signal crimes and signal disorders’ which influence the fear of crime and feelings of insecurity in local areas. Professor Innes provides the following definitions for ‘signal crimes and disorders’: • A signal crime is any criminal incident

that causes a change in peoples’ behaviour and/or beliefs about their security.

• A signal disorder is an act that breaches established conventions of social order and signifies the presence of other risks. They can be social or physical in nature.15

Information from the interviews is then sent to analysis at the UPSI at the University of Cardiff which then releases detailed confidential reports made available for ‘partner agencies’, ie the local police and the SSPS.

13. See: http://scandpf.com/ 14. See: http://www.upsi.org.uk/ 15. The Signal Crimes Perspective: A Sixty Second Briefing, National Reassurance Policing Programme, Dr. Martin Innes, University of Surrey, (Sept 2004).

Intimidating groups of youths in public spaces frequently form a signal disorder.

31

An i-NSI report carried out in Sutton South in June 200616 uses local interviews to form trouble hotspots on a grid for signal crimes and signal disorders. This method of highly localised crime mapping provides an example street-by-street account of incidents that create fear and avoidance in a map form (example Figure 2). The Ward is divided into grids based upon the i-NSI interviews (in blue). Areas affected by signal crimes and disorders are indicated in red. The map below shows areas, roads or points where respondents have indicated that, through fear, they would actively avoid. For example, in Sutton Central, respondents indicated that they would avoid the areas around ASDA and the alleyway by the side of the supermarket building. The railway station and pubs in

the high street are also of concern to the respondents to this specific survey. Benhill Road was rife with signal crimes such as domestic disputes, noise, damage, verbal abuse and public violence.17 The result is that SNTs are given highly detailed sources of information in a stable and structured way with the i-NSI interview process. It provides a rich picture of the area and its problems by engaging with residents/respondents in a direct and confidential way. Sensitive descriptive data is sanitised. i-NSI has the potential to provide long-term and detailed intelligence to SNTs in Sutton. This is to be welcomed as it arms SNT officers with highly localised knowledge.

16. Community Intelligence Report on Sutton Central Ward, Sutton, Colin H Roberts MA, UPSI, June 2006. 17. Ibid, page 9

Figure 2.


32


18. Audit Commission, Corporate Assessment, para. 105, page 32, (Nov 08) 19. Message from Borough Commander, Chief Superintendent Robert Reed, Metropolitan Police Authority publication: Local Policing Summary, Sutton. 2008, page 4 20. Message from Borough Commander, Chief Superintendent Robert Reed, Metropolitan Police Authority publication: Local Policing Summary, Sutton. 2008, page 4 21. See Met crime figures at: http://www.met.police.uk/crimefigures/index.php.

Total Crimes Sutton Met Total

No. of crimes (12 months to November 08). 13,618 848,033

No. of crimes (12 months to November 07). 14,176 881,781

% change -3.9% -3.8%

The i-NSI project has attracted the praise of the Audit Commission. Praise was particularly given to the initiative in its enabling the Council and its partners to target areas with specific issues with appropriate responses.18 A key success is that ‘appropriate’ responses are needed for differing areas. One size fits all policing in a borough like Sutton will only prop up existing contradictions between the incidences of crime and the perception of crime and antisocial behaviour. Projects like i-NSI can help to break down these contradictions in order to deliver the policing which Sutton residents demand and deserve.

Safer Sutton: Fact or Fiction? The Council and the Metropolitan Police routinely assure residents that Sutton borough is the ‘second safest’ in London. But most residents feel differently. The fear of crime in Sutton is

disproportionately high and we need to understand why. The Liberal Democrat administration repeatedly falls back on its purported status as a ‘safe borough’.

We contend that: • This creates a perception that the

Council and its partners are largely ignoring local peoples’ concerns about crime and antisocial behaviour.

• The Liberal Democrat administration of the Council has shown a clear unwillingness to use new tactics, such as the judicious use of dispersal orders, to tackle antisocial behaviour in Sutton.

This is an area of weakness, showing a lack of demonstrable political will to drive crime, and the fears associated with it, down even lower. In accordance with Sutton’s ‘safe’ image, figures from the year 2007/08 show that the number of offences in Sutton were reduced by 13.4%, which accounts for a total of 2,068 fewer offences.20 Yet in the same year residential burglary offences increased by 23.6%, accounting for 155 offences, and ‘gun enabled crime’ rose by 15 offences, giving a percentage increase of 55.6%.21 Figure 3.19

33

Despite reductions in reported offences overall, Sutton appears to have a ‘seesaw’ effect when it comes to the reduction of crime in some offences, marked by a spike in others. At the time of writing, Sutton is comparable with the Met as a whole regarding reported crime figures, with an average reduction of 3.8% (Fig 3). In contrast, figures from the British Crime Survey (BCS) show that over a longer period the overall crime rate in Sutton is below the England and London average, in accordance with government targets (Figure 4).22 BCS also shows that recorded crime remains relatively static.23 It should be noted that as a London borough, Sutton is judged against official figures indicating crime hotspots like Hackney, Tower Hamlets and Croydon. It is not surprising that it compares favourably in figure 5. Yet the public

perception does not tally and the political leadership of the Council fails to appreciate this. National crime statistics from the BCS can prove to be misleading as a source of victim study. Its findings are arguably of limited use in setting policing priorities and have been subject to criticism. 24 25 The Council and SSPS should use localised knowledge and research in assessing crime figures, rather than national statistics. Constant reassurances from the Liberal Democrat Executive Member for Community Safety that Sutton is safe, and that any view to the contrary is “scaremongering” will only continue to breed resentment and a lack of confidence in the political administration of the Council.

22. Note: the Y Axis is based on a points scoring system used by the Neighbourhood Renewal Unit at the DCLG to quantify performance on ‘floor targets’ issued by the Home Office aim of reducing crime by 15%, with the baseline at 2003. See: http://www.fti.neighbourhood.gov.uk/ 23. A view shared in The State of Sutton: An Economic, Social and Environmental Profile of Sutton, Capital Ambi-tion (Local Futures, Dec 2007), page 8. 24. Government figures ‘missing’ two million violent crimes, The Independent, Tues 26 June 2007 25. The BCS has encountered criticism from the former Shadow Home Secretary, Rt Hon. David Davis MP, on the Today programme, see: From 7.34 a.m. 22 July 2004. http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/thursday.shtml

Figure 4.


34


Recent studies show that despite its ‘safe’ status, 64% of residents are worried about antisocial behaviour.27 Moreover, 62% of residents feel as though their area has got worse as a result of crime and antisocial behaviour, as shown in Figure 6.28 If a Council tells its residents that they feel safer, does it really have that effect?

The reassuring media (Figure 7) will do little to tackle the perceptions of residents. Figures recently presented to the Sutton Community & Police Forum (April 2009) show that Sutton is slipping in its overall reported crime figures, falling from 5th to 6th in the reported offences index, per thousand residents.29

26. Illustrative figures obtained from Met Figures Website: http://www.met.police.uk/crimefigures/ 27. Ipsos MORI Residents Survey, Feb 2008, page 22. 28. Ibid. p.14. 29. See, Report for the Sutton Community & Police Forum, ’ Sutton’s Comparator Boroughs’, April 2009. This report accounts for the period 1st March 2008 to 28th February 2009.

29862

27910

32459

13790

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000

Hackney

Tower Hamlets

Croydon

Sutton

Number of offences

Total Number of reported crimes (Jan 08 to Jan 09)

Figure 5.26

5

62%

38%

31%

10%

10%

6%

2%

2%

Perceived decline

Job/Employment

Health/Social Services

Housing

Transport

Schools/Education

Crime/Anti-Social Behaviour

Leisure/Shopping

Environment/Cleanliness

Q Why do you say the area has got worse?

Base: All who say the area has got worse (246) Sutton Residents, 12th October – 19th November 2007

Figure 6.

35

Given that residents’ perceptions of decline being predominately in the area of crime and antisocial behaviour are not evidenced in statistics, the Council’s leadership should give an honest ‘warts and all’ account of Sutton’s standing in this policy area. Safety is not universal: Pockets of disadvantage Sutton is geographically a small London borough with steep social and economic differences. It is not surprising that this has an impact on crime and antisocial behaviour. The socio-economic gap in Sutton can be broadly, though not universally, illustrated by the significant difference between the low-density affluent areas like Cheam and Belmont, in comparison to high-density low-income

areas with deprivation, such as St. Helier and Roundshaw. According to research carried out on behalf of ‘Capital Ambition’, Sutton has the 7th highest ‘inequality score’ in London and 88th in Britain as a whole.30 Consequently this is reflected in the perception of crime and antisocial behaviour among residents. For example, the survey results in Figure 8 show that residents in the northern and central parts of the borough are more likely to feel ‘unsafe’ after dark, and that residents in more southern parts of the borough will feel ‘safe’. There is a clear link between the socio-economic profile of areas within the borough and the perception of crime and antisocial behaviour.31 The differentials in the fear of crime between the Northern Wards and other ward averages illustrated in Figure 9 are stark, specifically with these

30. The State of Sutton: An Economic, Social and Environmental Profile of Sutton, pp. 7-8. 31. A detailed map of the London Borough of Sutton and its comparison with national deprivation can be seen at: http://www.go-london.gov.uk/LIS/LSOA/Sutton/LsoaIMDRankMap.htm

Figure 7.


36


‘personal attack’ offences – showing that residents living in the Northern Wards feel less safe than residents living elsewhere. The Benhill Estate in Sutton and the Roundshaw Estate are in the 10% of the most deprived areas in Britain.32 Roundshaw has been undergoing extensive regeneration for 10 years and

whilst still continuing to be an area of deprivation, research shows that people feel safer in the surrounding areas of Beddington and Wallington than they do in Sutton, North Cheam and Worcester Park, and the Northern Wards. This can be held to demonstrate progress. In short: the better your area, the safer you feel.

59%

43%

59%

59%

39%

47%43%

47%

30%

35%

46%

32%

F ee lin g sa fe a fte r d ark – b y a rea

Q H o w sa fe do you fee l w a lk ing ou ts id e in th is ne ig hb ou rh ood a lo nea fte r da rk?

% U nsa fe % S a fe

N o rth C heam an dW orceste r P a rk

S u tton

C a rsha lton

B ed d ing ton andW a lling ton

N o rth ern W ard s

C h eam and B e lm o n t

N e t sa fe

-3

+24

+29

-7

+ 4

+27

Figure 8.

64%

36%49%

35%

57%46%

25%11%

74%64%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%

Northern Wards

Comparison

Other

Northern Wards

Other

Northern Wards

Other

Northern Wards

Other

Northern Wards

Other

Burglary Car theft Streetrobbery

Racistattacks

Antisocialbehaviour

% of surveyed residents worried

Different types of 'personal attack' offence

Fear of Crime: The Northern Wards in comparison with the rest of the borough

Figure 9.33

32. ibid http://www.go-london.gov.uk/ 33. Ipsos MORI figures.

37

Sutton has three ‘police stations’ servicing 185,500 people.34 These comprise two stations, in Sutton and Wallington, and one ‘police office’ in Worcester Park. This means one police ‘station’ per 60,000 of the Sutton population. This also leaves large geographical areas of the borough without a public, visible police station of SNT base.

Living In Fear Of Crime: The Causes There are many factors which influence the residential perception of the threat of crime and antisocial behaviour in Sutton. These call for closer examination. Signal crimes and signal disorders influence residents’ perceptions of local areas. Fixing Broken Windows Throughout the 1980s and 1990s a theory emerged from academic circles in the United States. It is called The Broken Window Theory.35 The theory contends that by tackling small instances of crime, vandalism and antisocial behaviour, major crimes will fall as a consequence. The Broken Window Theory takes its name from the following example. If a building has a few broken windows and these windows are not repaired, there is an increased likelihood of vandals breaking more windows and perhaps even to break into the building. The building in a state of disrepair will become a magnet of antisocial activities

that might include drug taking, squatting and arson. The same can be said of litter. The more it accumulates the greater the inducement will be for people to leave more litter there.36 Conversely, the more litter present means there will be less of a disincentive not to drop litter. If acts of vandalism are quickly remedied and litter is tackled before it accumulates, the likelihood of an escalation in these problems is minimised. According to the theory, if the perceived quality of the area/neighbourhood does not decline, community confidence is strengthened. This theory has relevance for Sutton. Ipsos MORI figures show that 62% of surveyed residents point to crime and antisocial behaviour with environmental and cleanliness coming second at 39%.37

As mentioned above the better the area the safer you feel. If the desirability of an area is increased, through the reduction of environmental factors such as ‘signal disorders’ or ‘signal crimes’, fear of crime is reduced.

34. 2007 population estimate 35. George Kelling and Catherine Coles, Fixing Broken Windows: Restoring Order and Reducing Crime in Our Communities, Simon & Schuster; 1st Touchstone Ed edition (1 Jul 1998) 36. This example was first used in The Atlantic Monthly, March 1982 in an article entitled “Broken Windows” by James Wilson and George Kelling. 37. Ipsos MORI, page 14

Graffiti like this in Sutton South is a perfect example of a signal crime.


38


Broader use of the i-NSI community intelligence model could be utilised to prevent problems escalating and creating an environment which is conducive for antisocial behaviour. Designing Out Crime ‘Crime prevention through environmental design’ (CPTED) is a multi-disciplinary approach with the aim of preventing and deterring criminal behaviour through environmental design. CPTED strategies rely upon the ability to influence offender decisions before criminal acts take place. Sutton Council’s planning strategy includes CPTED strategies in order to tackle crime and antisocial behaviour. The ‘Designing Out Crime’ supplementary planning document spells out the key principles of CPTED and actual planning methods that can achieve results.38

‘Local Ownership’

The quality of the local environment has a large influence on crime, antisocial behaviour and fear. It is important that environments are attractive and sustainable places where people want to live. A greater sense of ‘local ownership’ and community identity will encourage residents to feel a greater pride in their area/neighbourhood.

‘Natural Surveillance’

This principle is based on the notion that places are safer when they are overlooked and those doing the overlooking form a deterrent to crime and antisocial behaviour because they can witness it. Therefore crime and antisocial behaviour can be deterred by ensuring that all parts of the street, footpaths and public spaces

are open to casual supervision at all times. Designs and layouts cater for this accordingly, with the knock-on effect of giving potential offenders the message that they are being observed.

‘Defensible Space’

There is a need to establish clear distinctions between public and private space. This is so that there is no confusion or ambiguity as to where people are allowed to go, at all times of the day. It shows where public space ends and where semi-public, communal or private space begins. Offences are likely to occur when it is unclear as to the status of a domain. Research shows that areas which are physically isolated, with unclear definitions between public and private spaces have higher crime rates.

‘Access and Movement’

Good designs and layouts play a key role in tackling crime and antisocial behaviour by creating a better connected and more accessible environment without compromising security. Layouts with too many under-used connections and large areas of indirect, poorly-lit and segregated pedestrian routes providing access to the rear of buildings, can create opportunities for crime. A good movement design provides convenient, overlooked and well-used principle routes to get people to where they want to go. Sutton Council uses CPTED in its development plan policies, pre-application and planning application stages, planning decisions and conditions. It also features in applications to the Development Control Committee.

38. Designing Out Crime, Supplementary Planning Document, Environment and Leisure, April 2005

39

The use of CPTED methods is a valuable tool which the Council can use to tackle crime and antisocial behaviour before it happens. Prevention is better than cure.

Conclusion As we have discussed, crime and antisocial behaviour and the associated fears consistently top the priorities for residents. This is not unique to Sutton. Yet this should not mean that the Council’s political leadership, through its very strong influence on policing policies via the SSPS, should not strive to make Sutton the safest borough in Greater London. Political complacency often assuaged by convenient and occasionally misleading statistics, coupled with fatuous pronouncements that Sutton is the “second safest London borough” does little to allay the fears and concerns of residents. As the accountable face of local government, politicians should embrace and reflect the very real fears that dog the lives of residents. As has been stated in this report, constant reassurances from political actors in the Council do little, or indeed anything, to change the imbedded anxiety of residents. Sutton’s community must have confidence and the Council must do all it can to set the context and shape the environment in which that can be achieved. It is not all doom and gloom, and this is not the purpose of this report. This report has sought to outline the challenges and to highlight the good

things that are happening. For example, the increasingly local ethos of SNT policing with a return to community intelligence in order to tackle crime, aid detection and also foster prevention. Because Sutton is a ‘collection of villages’ this means that the policing priorities can considerably differ from neighbourhood to neighbourhood. The SNT model is working to address that. But awareness needs to be raised in the community of this service and its local ethos. The management of the SNTs is within the remit of the Head of SSPS. This is a good thing because the Head of SPSS reports to the elected accountable figure in the Council’s Executive in this service area, currently entitled the Executive Member for Community Safety. This is a local approach to policing and provides a clear accountability structure. In celebrating this innovation we must be cautious. We must not politicise the police, but in the same token local policing at a strategic policy level should not be so disconnected with local priorities ‘on the ground’. The forums set up to provide a conduit for local priorities in policing are simply not working. They are talking shops. This must change, even if it means a wholesale rethink of the structures, forums and committees. The mechanics of community safety are there. The tools to tackle crime and antisocial behaviour are there too. Regrettably the clear political leadership in Sutton Council, adequately and accurately reflecting residents’ priorities, is lacking. This has to change.


40


41

The State of Sutton: A Borough of Contradictions Decent Homes: Raising The Bar In Public Housing

Decent Housing: Raising The Bar In Public Housing

42


Introduction The quality of housing, in both private and public sectors, varies starkly depending, among other things, on your location in the borough. It is widely recognised that the quality of the built environment also varies in the borough with some areas epitomising the ‘Surrey suburban realm’ and other areas having the physical and, consequently, social features of inner London.1 As a social landlord, albeit via an Arm’s Length Management Organisation (ALMO)2 called the ‘Sutton Housing Partnership’ (SHP),3 Sutton does not have a good track record. In March 2008, following a comprehensive assessment and inspection by the Audit Commission,4 SHP scored a 1 Star rating describing it as ‘fair’. Poor ratings in the quality of housing stock has culminated in a failure to meet the ‘Decent Homes Standard’, poor customer satisfaction, inconsistent customer focus, and poor responsive repairs. A lack of strategic approaches from the ALMO contributed to this poor rating. On the issue of housing, we contend that: • The Council has failed in this core area

of service delivery. • Despite being a flagship policy of the

ruling Liberal Democrat

administration, the SHP project has had not been a success to date.

• Sutton’s housing stock is below acceptable standards and because of consistent underinvestment over two decades, this neglect has now deprived Sutton of the opportunity to receive a funding envelope of £112.5million from Central Government5 before 2011/12, thus condemning SHP tenants to more years of uncertainty in substandard accommodation.6 Sutton Council’s political leadership has nowhere to hide on this issue.

• The quality of the SHP housing stock needs to improve and that there is a moral and practical requirement to do so.

• Sutton’s tenants - who must be treated more as customers - deserve a better service from their landlord for the rent that they pay. More must be done to achieve this, despite SHP having enshrined a ‘customer focus’ in its mission statement and its core objectives.

• If SHP fails to meet Government criteria for funding, the Council should look for alternative options in social housing provision.

1. The Locality, Corporate Assessment, London Borough of Sutton, Audit Commission, Nov 2008 2. For more info on ALMOs, see the Department for Communities and Local Government website: http://www.communities.gov.uk/archived/publications/housing/armslengthmanagementorg 3. http://www.suttonhousingpartnership.org.uk 4. For a copy of the Audit Commission’s Report, see: http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/reports/BVIR.asp?CategoryID=&ProdID=CADD65A1-D0F4-492e-B702-3018AF2CCB2F 5. Letter to Sutton Council’s Chief Executive, Mr Paul Martin, from Mr Ken Swan, Team Leader, Decent Homes Housing Finance, DCLG, dated 4 June 2008. 6. Letter from Sir Bob Kerslake, the Chief Executive of the Homes & Communities Agency, dated 17 July 2009. This letter informed Sutton Council that because of its failure to meet the Audit Commission’s 2 Star rating in March 2008, it will not receive any funding allocations from Central Government even if it passes its inspection with 2 Stars in late 2009. This is because the only ALMOs which have already achieved 2 Stars are eligible.

43

What is an ALMO when it’s at home? ALMOs are not-for-profit companies owned by local authorities with the purposes of managing and improving public housing stock.7 They operate under the terms of a management agreement with the local council. The first ALMO was set up in 2002. Government funding was provided on the condition that local authorities separated their management and strategic functions. The options of retaining control of the management of housing or transferring the housing stock to a Registered Social Landlord (RSL), usually a Housing Association, was still available. Stock transfer or the establishment of an ALMO required a ballot of all tenants and leaseholders affected. Sutton’s ALMO was established on 1st April 2006. SHP manages the Council’s 6,670 rented properties, along with

1,370 leasehold properties and 86 ‘Section 16’ freeholder houses.8

SHP is managed by an unpaid board of directors. At least a third of an ALMO board is normally made up of tenants. The composition of the board is shown below (Figure 1). Typically a third, or more, of board members are tenants and residents. The job description of the Board of SHP is to: 1. Scrutinise and monitor the

performance of SHP. 2. Report on the Management Agreement

between the Council and SHP. 3. Approve the budgets. 4. Agree policies and make financial

decisions. 5. Ensure that SHP is run lawfully and

ethically.9

Sutton Housing Partnership is responsible for the day-to-day management of services for the Borough’s 7,000 tenants and 1,400 leaseholders.

Figure 1

7. One ALMO, ‘Wolverhampton Homes’, controversially looks after commercial property as well. 8. For these properties a service charge is payable. 9. For more info, see: http://www.suttonhousingpartnership.org.uk/The%20Board/the_board.html

Public Housing – Management At Arms Length


44


According to the National Federation of ALMOs (NFA)10 £3.7billion has been committed to ALMOs since April 2002, with a further £2.4billion committed for the period 2008-2011.11 If an ALMO can obtain at least a 2 Star rating, following an Audit Commission inspection, further funding can be acquired. The Audit Commission report placed the ALMO in the worst performing 25% of ‘comparable organisations’ nationwide. One year on, its 1 Star ‘Fair’ rating in March 2008

places it in the bottom 11% of all established ALMOs (see above, Figure 2). It’s not all bad: Prospects for improvement The Audit Commission report was keen to stress that there are “promising” prospects for improvement for the future. The report illustrates the prospects for improvement12 in the format shown below in Figure 3.

20

30

8

11

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

3 Star 'Excellent'

2 Star 'Excellent'

1 Star 'Fair' & 0 Star 'Poor'

Not inspected

Number of ALMOs

Audit Commission rating

Inspection Results of 69 ALMOs (March 2009)

Sutton Housing Partnership Figure 2

10. National Federation of ALMOs, see: www.almos.org.uk 11. Key facts about ALMOS, published 03 March 2009. 12. Audit Commission SHP report, (Feb 2008). p.9

Figure 3

45

The Audit Commission’s diagnosis for improvement highlights the following: • There are noticeable service

improvements which customers would recognise.

• The implementation of most service improvement recommendations.

• The good relationship between SHP, as an ALMO, and the Council which it goes as far as to describe as “strong and effective”.

• The development of a ‘performance’ culture.

• Improvements in leadership and the skills of board members, managers and staff, helping to shape highly motivated and enthusiastic staff.13

The Audit Commission is right to highlight the development of a ‘performance’ culture to improve the service SHP provides. It is also right to point out the benefits of a motivated and enthusiastic staff. Happier staff will inevitably perform better and tenants will benefit from an improved service. Recent news from the Homes & Communities Agency will undoubtedly impact on staff morale. We need to give due attention to the positive aspects of the Audit Commission’s inspection report and learn from the criticisms and ‘barriers to improvement’. The Council should be ruthless in removing the barriers to improvement highlighted in the report.

Beating the barriers to improvement, where is SHP failing? Through SHP, Sutton’s public housing provision has been criticised on the following grounds: • Inconsistent customer focus in the

delivery of its service and the dissemination of information to customers.

• Poor customer satisfaction, with some distinctly low areas.

• Gaps in service standards, and ineffective monitoring.

• Poor performance measurement. • Weak service in customer complaints,

responsive repairs, keeping appointments, and the ‘turning around’ of void properties.

• Inconsistency in the quality of adaptation work and voids repair.

• The lack of plain English versions of leases offered to leaseholders, and maintenance services failing to be on par with other residents.

• Limited outcomes in delivering efficiencies and ensuring value for money.14

13. Ibid, p.8 14. Ibid.


46


In March 2008, two members of the Housing, Planning and Transport Policy Group carried out a fact-finding excursion to an SHP managed property in June Close, Carshalton.15 The results of the visit brought up several examples of SHP’s poor management of the property. The inspection also drew pointed criticism of SHP from the tenant family. The family in question, comprised of two parents and two young children, has asked to remain anonymous.

It was clear from the outset that the property was suffering from underinvestment. The walls were cold and the property was draughty. The single-glazed windows were clearly incapable of retaining heat inside the house and persistent mould had developed as a result, see Figure 4 taken in a young girl’s bedroom. The mother of the house, referred to as Mrs X, said that even with continual efforts to remove the mould it would return due to the poor condition of the outdated single glazed windows. Inspection of the kitchen demonstrated clear health and safety flaws. These included a boiler which requires regular maintenance from SHP technicians, see Figure 5. Mrs X told visitors from the Policy Group:

"It's like Russian Roulette with our heating. We had to get it fixed four times since the beginning of this year. In winter we have to sleep downstairs because the house gets so cold. There is an ice-cold draughty from the neglected windows and it's horrible when it snows. What do we pay our rent and Council Tax for? We love the area and we really don't want to move, but the conditions are appalling."

As shown in Figure 6. Mrs X also drew visitors’ attention to the positioning of a plug socket over a gas hob, in blatant infraction of British Standard 7671. This regulation maintains that an electrical fitting must not be located above a cooking appliance as it represents a clear danger. Mrs X said that she had complained about the hazard that this posed. SHP had not taken steps to resolve the issue.

Case Study One: SHP Property in June Close, Carshalton

Figure 4. Wallpaper peeling off damp walls.

Figure 5. ‘Russian Roulette’ boiler

15. Carshalton & Clockhouse Ward.

Figure 6. Pointing out electrical danger

47

Councillor Tony Shields,16 Deputy Leader of the Opposition, is a Home Office trained former fire officer with extensive experience on the ‘Sutton Red Watch’. Following the Camberwell Fire on 3rd July 2009, which cost six lives, Councillor Shields undertook a random fire safety inspection of Chaucer House, a high rise property managed by SHP.17 His inspection flagged up several significant fire risks including:

• A lack of securing straps on the seventh, eighth and ninth floors on the ‘dry-rising main outlets’. The maintenance and accessibility of the dry-rising main is essential in allowing fire crews to get water to the ‘seat of a fire’. • The seventh floor fire door, providing access to the protected escape route, was not self-closing. Self-closing doors are critical in suppressing the spread of fire throughout a building. • On the sixth floor the fire door did not close properly, because it did not physically fit the doorframe, see Figure 7. • ‘Class A’ combustible materials(rubbish) had been allowed to accumulate in the sixth floor waste collection area, presenting a significant fire risk, see Figure 8.

Fire protective glass was missing on two fire doors on the first floor of the building. Should a fire have occurred on the first floor, this deficiency could have caused ‘smoke-logging’ of the fire escape to all floors above, see Figure 9. Following Councillor Shields’ inspection, swift action was undertaken by SHP. Disturbingly, during a second visit by Councillor Shields a resident of Chaucer House, who has requested his name be withheld, said that the protective fire glass in Figure 9 had been smashed

during a rowdy Christmas party in December 2008. SHP staff are routinely in the building cleaning corridors and stairwells, but despite this near daily presence in the tower block no action was taken for over seven months. It took a random inspection by an opposition councillor to initiate action.

Case Study Two: Fire Safety In Chaucer House, Sutton

Figure 7. Fire doors that could not be closed.

Figure 8. Dumped rubbish will fuel fire

Figure 9. Fire glass smashed seven months ago.

16. Tony Shields joined the London Fire Brigade in 1987. He served in the London Boroughs of Ealing, Richmond-upon-Thames and Sutton, serving in the latter Borough for 10 years. Throughout his career Councillor Shields participated in many fire safety and ‘familiarisation’ visits to significant properties in Greater London. 17. Sutton North Ward.


48


Case Study Conclusions These two case studies illustrate serious problems with SHP’s service in fire safety (a legal duty of care owed to residents) and the overall poor quality of SHP managed properties for tenants. With regard to fire safety, SHP and the Council should be keen to study the report of the Government’s fire safety adviser, Sir Keith Knight, on his investigation into the Camberwell fire and the dangers posed by tower blocks.18 The Council should press upon SHP the need for the very highest standards in safety precautions for tenants. The state of Mrs X’s property in June Close, Clockhouse, illustrates quite how bad the neglect of our social housing has become. One of the key points which the Policy Group visitors took from the visit was that the family were not in receipt of a customer-focused service. Here is a key contradiction: SHP tenants are customers, but SHP does not treat them as customers. Tenants are Customers Too A lack of clear customer focus and resident involvement is one of the major challenges that SHP faces. Now Government funding has been deferred, SHP needs to be honest and up front with

tenants about the options available to them in delivering the council housing they deserve. As shown above a failure to involve residents/customers accounts for a core part of the failure of the service. Good customer relations are key to the success of any ALMO.19 SHP must improve in this area. The Audit Commission’s report rated resident involvement as ‘significant’ in 2003 - three years before the establishment of SHP. In the 2008 report, significant weaknesses were highlighted, although with some evidence that SHP was reaching out to ‘traditionally hard to reach communities’.20 SHP is described as having a weak ‘overall approach’ with poor impact on tenants. Assessment appears to indicate that resident/customer involvement has decreased with the establishment of SHP. Things were better beforehand - we need to understand why. The Sutton Federation of Tenants and Residents’ Associations (SFTRA)21 and the Sutton Leaseholder Association (SLA) are indispensable in assisting SHP to involve residents, but they must not become too reliant on these organisations.22

18. Sir Keith Knight QFSM CBE DL MIFireE, de facto HM Chief Inspector of Fire Services and Chief Fire and Rescue Adviser, has been commissioned by the Rt Hon John Denham MP, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, to investigate the fire in the London Borough of Southwark and to report findings to the DCLG. 19. Local Authority, ALMO and TMO Relationships – A Good Practice Guide, March 2009 20. Audit Commission SHP report, p.40. 21. http://www.sftra.org/ 22. Ibid. p.41

Involving Residents: Tenants Are Customers Too

49

Despite the undoubted hard work of staff,23 SHP needs a more structured long-term strategy to increase the involvement of customers/residents. Fostering customer involvement and the ability to help shape the direction of service is key to increasing customer satisfaction. Sutton does not appear to be making significant improvements in this field. Every two years a ‘STATUS’ survey is carried out to survey the satisfaction of tenants in Sutton housing stock. All local authorities undertake this survey to ascertain the views of tenants as to their respective housing services. The surveys show a negligible increase in customer satisfaction for residents in public housing services (see Figure 10.). Under the old council housing system, the STATUS survey shows that satisfaction in participation did improve between 2003 and 2005 by 3.9% but with the establishment of SHP the increase in customer satisfaction was marginal at 0.4%.

It bears further analysis as to what was done between 2003 and 2005, under the old housing regime, and also between 2005 and 2007 with the creation of the ALMO to account for the figures. The next STATUS survey will take place this year – 2009. There is low leaseholder satisfaction with participation opportunities at 39.1%. The satisfaction rates for residents in sheltered housing is markedly low at 18.7%.24

The bottom line is that residents are unsatisfied with their involvement in the service despite the best efforts of SHP to facilitate this. ALMOs should promote tenant engagement in the service they provide. The requirement that ALMO Boards have a one third tenant contingent is a good example of this, as is the fact that many ALMOS have over 50% tenant representation, with a tenant as the Chairman.25 SHP should look closer at best practice in other ALMOs.

58.60%

62.50%

62.90%

56.00% 57.00% 58.00% 59.00% 60.00% 61.00% 62.00% 63.00% 64.00%

Sutton Council HousingServices 2003

Sutton Council HousingServices 2005

Sutton Housing Partnership2007

Percentage of residents satisfied

Public Housing Regime

Custome r Participation Satisfaction (STATUS Surveys)

Figure 10.

23. Also praised and acknowledged by the report, Ibid. 24. Ibid. 25. ALMO Governance – Empowering Tenants, NAF, 3rd March 2009


50


SHP wants to engage with tenants. This is what ALMOs are designed to do. On inspection it was acknowledged that SHP can demonstrate it places value on customer views. For example, a ‘mystery shopper’ scheme identified problems in consistency with the reception service. The service improved as a result. Light bulb replacement services have also improved as a result of a tenants’ conference and the use of a repairs investment group (RIG).26 SHP has shown the ability to make changes, but it needs to tackle the apparent contradictions in the service it provides, enhancing the examples of good practice, internal and external to tackle problems. Safeguarding Good Tenants, Not Protecting Bad Ones Every social landlord in Britain has good tenants and bad tenants. One of the challenges for Sutton is to ensure that good tenants (who make up the vast majority) are valued and retained, and that bad tenants are dealt with effectively. Compelling evidence of inequity in the systems dealing with bad tenants has been heard at meetings of the Housing, Planning and Transport Policy Group.27 Accounts of good responsible tenants – some of them vulnerable - being driven from their homes just to avoid the continued antisocial behaviour. Responsible tenants should not have to move away from their homes because of bad neighbours.

In 2003, Sutton Council’s housing service was judged, by the Audit Commission, to have highly effective arrangements to deal with nuisance and antisocial tenants. The 2008 inspection of SHP found strengths and weaknesses in tenancy management arrangements to deal with problems. SHP does not have ‘introductory tenancies’ - a probationary period to ensure responsible tenancy. SHP was also found to lack a 24-hour responsive service, lacking sufficient use of ‘hot-spot’ data to target its efforts against bad tenants.28 This has lead to satisfaction levels falling.

SHP should better use its hot-spot data to target resources to deal with these issues. Antisocial behaviour and nuisance is a 24-hour problem, not a nine to five issue. A 24-hour responsive service should be in place to properly serve residents. If customer focus is to be improved and enhanced at the centre of SHP’s operations, then protecting responsible tenants should be key. Rewarding good tenants

26. Audit Commission SHP report, p. 41 27. For more detail on the Policy Group, see: http://www.changesutton.org.uk/ 28. Audit Commission SHP report, p. 43

Good tenants should not have to suffer because of inadequate action against bad tenants.

51

There should be more incentives for good tenants and responsible behaviour. SHP has not devised a full set of incentives for rewarding ‘responsible’ tenant behaviour, except keeping clear rent accounts. Some consultation has been carried out with tenants and leaseholders on a reward scheme for properties left in good condition when occupants move on. This will need development. A detailed cost/benefit analysis of the schemes to promote responsible behaviour needs to be carried out. The SHP’s Chief Executive has drawn up a ‘Tenants’ Compact’ setting out the rights and responsibilities of tenants in SHP properties. Confidence in SHP is being built up by the establishment of a team concentrating on antisocial behaviour. The Audit Commission reports that the team has had strong performance so far (see Figure 11 for calls response figures). This is a step in the right direction. But

the Tenant’s Compact needs to genuinely empower responsible tenants to ensure that they can enforce their rights. Raising the profile of antisocial behaviour towards reponsible tenants and ensuring that it is dealt with appropriately will build up confidence in tenants themselves. Tenants are paying to live in SHP accommodation (with significant recent rises in rent29); they should not have to put up with antisocial behaviour and nuisance too. A clear avenue for redress must be available and for it to be seen as a high priority for SHP. A recent example shows that tough action can be taken against antisocial tenants. An antisocial tenant living in Balaam House on the Collingwood Estate has had his flat boarded up by the police working with SHP.30 Disturbingly, the head of SHP’s ‘community cohesion’ confirmed that this was only the second time that the power to board up an antisocial tenant’s accommodation had been used. Superintendent Chas Bailey, of Sutton

100%

97.20%

91.40%

82.20%

0% 50% 100% 150%

2007: Urgent Calls Response

2007: Lower Priority Calls Response (95%target)

2006/07: Urgent Calls Response

2006/07: Lower Priority Calls Response

Target Timescales - within 48 hours

Calls Response Priority

SHP Antisocial Behaviour Team Response Performance

Figure 11.

29. ‘Indecent: Damning Report on Council Housing’ Conservative Press Release, Ref: PR 13-03-08 reports an increase of 5.5%. 30. Sutton & Epsom Advertiser, Friday 7 July 2009.


52


Police, said: “We are determined to use all powers at our disposal to crack down on antisocial behaviour, which will not be tolerated in Sutton.” Sutton Council should be using all its influence to support the police and ensure that antisocial behaviour is stamped out in our social housing.

Conclusion Sutton is characterised by affluent neighbourhoods, situated a stone’s throw from pockets of deprivation; the contrast is stark. Some of the most vulnerable of Sutton’s residents live in social housing provided by SHP. For decades our social housing stock has been allowed to fall into an unacceptably poor state. This represents a clear failure to provide Sutton residents with a good service. This must change. The creation of the SHP ALMO, a flagship

policy of the Liberal Democrat administration, has been objectively judged by inspectors as not being up to scratch, by failing to meet the ‘Decent Homes Standard’. On a national level, Sutton’s ALMO is in the bottom 25% of the worst performing comparable organisations. SHP and the Council have received a severe blow from the Homes & Communities Agency in the Ministerial decision to not provide any capital funding for investment in SHP properties

because of its failure to achieve a 2 Star status in 2008. Sutton has consistently underinvested in its housing stock. The political leadership of the Council is directly culpable in SHP’s failure to meet the 2 Stars necessary to unlock £112.5million of funding. SHP’s hard working staff are not to blame for the quality of Sutton’s social housing stock. They have lacked the support and strategic direction that an effective political administration would have given them. We support any measures which will achieve the required 2 Star rating from the Audit Commission. Capital funding in 2011/12 hinges on this. If SHP does not reach the Decent Homes Standard, Sutton will have to seriously consider other options for the management of our social housing, because tenants deserve better. It is to be welcomed that the Audit Commission has identified SHP’s efforts as possessing ‘promising prospects for improvement.’ The issue of customer focus needs to be addressed. SHP and the Council should not forget that tenants are customers as well. Historically, council housing issues have not featured prominently in Full Council motions or questions. This report posits the view that this is because social housing tenants do not feel emancipated or empowered in their relationship with the Council. Recent results from Sutton Council’s ‘Place Survey ’ show that residents do not feel empowered in influencing Sutton Council decisions.31 We pay tribute to the work of SFTRA in speaking up for tenants. Additionally, good tenants should feel

31. Place Survey 2008/09, London Borough of Sutton, Ipsos MORI

[SHP has] lacked the support and strategic

direction that an effective political

administration would have given them.

53

empowered against bad tenants with the balance realigned to ensure that good behaviour is rewarded and encouraged, while bad behaviour is punished and consequently deterred. Tenants should feel empowered in their

dealings with the Council as their landlord and therefore to be able to bring it to account. Currently tenants are getting a raw deal from the Council, through SHP. In shaping housing policy for the future, the Council must be open minded and bold in pushing through the changes needed to truly raise the bar in provision of public housing and so ending a consistent failure in service delivery to remedy the contradictions.


Paul Scully and Parliamentary Candidate, Philippa Stroud campaigning with SFTRA to change the Housing Revenue Account subsidy which takes the equivalent of 19 weeks of residents’ rent each year to improve housing in other parts of the country.

54


55

The State of Sutton: A Borough of Contradictions Education and Young People: Opening The Door Of Opportunity To Local Children

Education and Young People: Opening The Door Of Opportunity To Local Children

56


Introduction Capitalising on Excellence Sutton has much to celebrate when it comes to schools and education. As a Local Education Authority (LEA) we consistently top the league tables for excellence. The borough has 14 secondary schools, some of which maintain selection through academic ability. Local people are justifiably proud of the achievements of our grammar schools and our comprehensive schools. Grammar schools in Sutton are among the best in the country for GCSE and ‘A’ level results.1 The success of Sutton’s grammar schools does not necessarily reflect the success of Sutton’s borough pupils in terms of educational achievement. This is because pupils resident in the borough make up the minority of grammar school places. The contradiction here is apparent. Sutton has excellent schools, but they are not benefiting Sutton as much as they could and should. The self-evident success of Sutton’s grammar schools is a justifiable source of pride, yet we need to examine whether there is a sufficient relationship between our excellent grammar schools and our non-selective schools. What frameworks can we improve, or put in place, to ensure that standards are raised across the board? How can grammar school excellence help to shape better comprehensive schools?

More should be done to capitalise on the excellence of the borough’s selective schools to raise the bar for all our secondary school pupils. The borough has 43 primary schools2 and according to figures from the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) the attainment levels vary significantly for the three core subjects (Maths, English and Science) at Key Stage 2 (KS2).3

There has been a historic lack of formal support or encouragement from Sutton Council - as the LEA - to help prepare primary school pupils for the selective examinations for local grammar schools. This is in contrast to other LEAs with selective schools, which do more to support pupils. It is wrong that the political leadership of the Council has made little effort, if any, to encourage borough pupils to take advantage of the excellent resource provided by our grammar schools.

It is also telling that the political leadership of the Council consistently refuses to publicly signify support for our selective school system. This ambiguity needs to be cleared.4

Sutton Council needs to work harder to give local children a fair opportunity to benefit from our grammar schools.

1. See 2008 League tables: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/a_level_gcse_results/ 2. Education Establishments; Children, Young People and Learning Services, (Version 03.08) 3. DCFS 2008 figures; ‘pupils achieving the expected level or above’ & ‘pupils achieving above the expected level’ on aggregate across the three core subjects, see: http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/cgi-bin/performancetables/group_08.pl?Mode=Z&Type=LA&Begin=s&No=319&Base=c&Phase=p&F=1&L=50&Year=08 4. Note: Both Liberal Democrat MPs voted to abolish all grammars (Education Bill, 15/03/06).

57

Looking After Vulnerable Children It is the moral and legal duty of any local authority to look after vulnerable youngsters. A recent inspection by Ofsted shows that Sutton’s services for ‘looked after children’ are just about adequate. It has a mixture of major strengths alongside important weaknesses. For example the smooth transition of looked after children leaving care teams is signalled out as a strength. Yet there is insufficient supported accommodation for these care leavers once they have left. There are contradictions in the quality of the services. We need to get a grasp as to why some areas have major strengths and others important weaknesses. There is a strong moral and practical imperative in ensuring standards are universally high and that major strengths in the service are across the board. Sutton’s vulnerable children deserve better. Complacency cannot be an option. Special Educational Needs – Fairer Local Provision The number of children with Special Educational Needs (SEN) requires special attention. The number of ‘statements’ issued to pupils with SENs is increasing. Over the last ten years LEAs are reporting an increase in pupils with Autistic Spectrum Disorders (ASD).5

Some local LEAs have even reported 87%

increases in the diagnosis of ASDs in pupils over five year periods.6 Sutton has seen a growth of learning difficulties and/or disabilities in pupils, especially in the realm of the autistic spectrum where the number of new diagnoses has doubled over the past five years.7 8 SEN provision is being increased but recent controversies show that resident pupils still have to travel significant distances, within the borough and without. The contradiction here is that although provision is improving, it is not easily accessible to everyone.

5. The Rising Challenge: A Survey of Local Education Authorities on Educational Provision for pupils with Autistic Spectrum Disorders, All-Party Parliamentary Group on Autism. (Dec 2001) 6. Ibid. p.8. 7. Joint Area Review, London Borough of Sutton Children’s Services Authority Area, (Ofsted, July 2008), at p.15. 8. Learning Services Performance Committee, ‘SEN Budget Pressures’, Sutton Council, (11 September 2006).

The National Autistic Society estimate that 1 in 100 people in the UK have autism.


58


As observed in the introduction to this report, Sutton’s primary schools have varying levels of attainment with a significant number of schools achieving below average scores at KS2. Figure 1 shows the KS2 aggregate scores from 2008 taken from a sample of 33 of Sutton’s primary schools showing there is varied attainment in our primary schools. The majority of primary schools, at approximately 55%, are achieving below

average scores for KS2 core subjects. But when examined overall, from figures provided by DCSF, Sutton’s results are good (see below) with high amounts of pupils reaching Level 4 (the level expected for most 11 year olds). The DCSF set the target that by 2008 the proportion of schools in which fewer than 65% of 11 year olds achieve level 4 or above in each of English and mathematics, is reduced by 40%.11

Figure 1.9

18

15

13 14 15 16 17 18 19

Below Average Score

Average and A bove Score

Number of primary schools achieving below, average and above average scores, based on pupil numbers33

Primary schools (DCSF

figures)

2008: Aggregate KS2 scores across the three core subjects: English, Maths and Science

9. DCSF figures, Achievement and Attainment Table, 2008. 10. The Annual Attainment Report, Sutton Advice & Inspection Service, (January 2009) 11. See DCSF: http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/trends/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.showIndicator&cid=5&iid=30

Figure 2.10

82.20% 82.20%90.40%

34% 37%

48.20%

0.00%10.00%20.00%30.00%40.00%50.00%60.00%70.00%80.00%90.00%

100.00%

English Mathematics Science

2008: KS2 National Curriculum Assessment

Level 4 or above

Level 5

Primary Focus: Maximising Above Average Attainment Across The Board

59

12. DCSF figures for 2008. 13. Report of the Executive Head of School Improvement, (Dr Peter Simpson) to the Children and Young People Scrutiny Committee, 12 March 2009, p. 32. 14. Figures from the DCSF on their sample of 33 primary schools, 2008.

It is to be welcomed that Sutton’s attainment in the core subjects remains above the national average, as a whole.13 But there appear to be quite significant gulfs in the KS2 attainment of individual schools. It should be noted that most of the schools missing the average attainment levels for the core subjects miss the mark by relatively small margins. There are, however, a handful of

schools missing the average attainment levels and DCSF targets by a long way, for example Amy Johnson Primary School in Wallington and Green Wrythe Primary School in Carshalton. Is there a correlation between schools failing to meet attainment targets and the number of pupils receiving support from School Action, with SEN statements or support from School Action Plus? DCSF figures appear to show that this is not the case with practically no correlation

Figure 3.12

21

12

20

13

23

10

0

5

10

15

20

25

English AboveAverage

English BelowAverage

Maths AboveAverage

Maths BelowAverage

Science AboveAverage

Science BelowAverage

Sample of 33 borough primary

schools

England Averages for Level 4 Attainment (Science 81%, Maths 79%, Science 88%)

2008: KS2 Above and Below Average Level 4 Attainment Figures

Figure 4.14

School

Pupils with SEN statements or School Action Plus support

Pupils with School Action Support

English Lev-el 4+ (England Ave. 81%)

Maths Level 4+ (England Ave. 79%)

Science L4+ (England Ave. 88%)

Foresters Primary School

34.6% 0% 65% 81% 77%

Abbey Primary School 28.3% 21.7% 75% 87% 93%

Amy Johnson Primary School

25.6% 30.2% 42% 53% 65%

Muschamp Primary School and Language

Opportunity Base

24.1% 17.2% 81% 79% 91%

Rushy Meadow Primary School

22.8% 12.3% 81% 77% 86%


60


between the two. The top five schools by pupil population with SEN statements, School Action and School Action Plus support show there is no clear statistical connection between the two. Some of these schools, despite having higher than average pupil populations with SENs, are achieving above average Level 4 attainments at KS2. Sutton is a borough of contradictions in the varying attainment of KS2 scores in our primary schools. We need to understand why there is such variation and how the quality of all schools’ educational attainment can be raised. This is important because primary schools are the foundation stone for our resident pupils’ education.

Because between 82% and 86% of primary school pupils are residents of the borough, the educational attainment of primary school pupils is a closer reflection of how Sutton’s children are doing as a whole, than those of our secondary selective schools.16

To conclude this section it should be noted that residents’ satisfaction with Sutton’s primary schools does perform well against other London Boroughs, according to figures provided Ipsos MORI (see Figure 5 below). However, it should be noted that these figures are taken from a relatively small sample of London Boroughs. The Council should take steps to ascertain residents’ satisfaction from a wider sample of other London LEAs.

Figure 5.15

0102030405060708090

100

Percentage Satisfied/Dissatisfied

London Boroughs (on data held)

Residents Survey: How satisfied are you with primary schools?

Satisfied %

Dissatisfied %

Net %

15. Sutton Residents Survey, Final Report, Ipsos MORI, Feb 2008, p.59. 16. Approximate figures provided by the Executive Head for School Improvement in Sutton Council, Dr Peter Simpson.

61

As outlined in the introduction, Sutton has some of the best selective schools in the country having retained its grammar school system. But the success of the grammar schools, demonstrated in national league tables, does not necessarily reflect the educational achievement of pupils residing in the borough. Figure 6 shows that Sutton residents make up a noticeable minority of the grammar school population at 38.5%. Sutton residents therefore account for 2,018 of the 5,338 pupils in Sutton’s five selective grammar schools. This works out at 12.3% of the total school population. Sutton has an overall secondary education population of 16,370. Of these pupils, 11,132 were at the borough’s nine non-selective schools.17 Pupils from outside the borough attending Sutton’s non-selective secondary schools number

at 2,510 (22.5% of non-selective school population and 15.3% of total school population). The figures show that Sutton’s grammar schools are popular with pupils from other boroughs. Further breakdown of the figures (below and overleaf in Figures 6 and 7, obtained by the Education and Training Policy Group) show that in every grammar school, pupils living in Sutton form the minority of the school population. The demand for grammar school places from extraterritorial pupils vastly outstrips the demand for places in our non-selective schools. Out of borough pupils are the minority in school populations in non-selective schools with only one notable exception – St. Philomena’s Catholic High School for Girls. Figures show that pupils who reside in the borough do not benefit from access to Sutton’s selective schools as much as pupils from outside the borough.

Grammar Schools: Make Them Work For Sutton

How many pupils living in Sutton attend Sutton's grammar schools?

38.5 % - Grammar schoolpupils living in Sutton

61.5% - Grammar schoolpupils living outside Sutton

Figure 6.18

17. Data taken from the May 2008 School Census. 18. Education and Training Policy Group, November 2008.


62


Figure 7.

325

500

315

595

281

669 722

515

686611

994

1222

830

1281

892

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

Wilson's Nonsuch High SuttonGrammar

WallingtonGirls

WallingtonBoys

Grammar School Statistics: Resident and Out of Borough Pupil Intake

Sutton ResidentPupils

Out BoroughResident Pupils

Total SchoolPopulation

Figure 8. This presents an apparent contradiction: we have great schools which do not reflect, or indeed benefit, local pupils as much as they can or should. Double Standards: Where is the local political leadership on grammar schools? Sutton is bound by the Greenwich Judgement (1989) which established the legal principle that maintained schools may not give priority to children for the sole reason that they live within the LEA's administrative boundaries. This means by law that Sutton cannot give preference to resident pupils for school places, selective or non-selective, on the basis of their residence. As foundation schools, Sutton’s selective schools are in charge of their own admissions criteria. The LEA has no say in admissions but is charged with ensuring that they are compliant with the law.19 There have been recent controversies over admissions policy changes from two Sutton grammar schools. The issue arose after the schools carried out a

1025

1150

1341

771

771

1211

325

500

344

1580

315

595

573

281

99

79

126

432

93

62

669

722

682

162

515

686

623

611

1124

1229

1467

1203

864

1273

994

1222

1026

1742

830

1281

1196

892

0 500 1000 1500 2000

Carshalton Boys

Carshalton Girls

Greenshaw

Glenthorne

Stanley Park

Overton Grange

Wilson's

Nonsuch High

The John Fisher

Cheam

Sutton Grammar

Wallington Girls

St Philomena's

Wallington Boys

Se lective and Non-Selective School Populations

Total

Out Borough Resident P upi ls

Sutton Resident Pupi ls

19. Note the development of the law following the Rotherham Judgement (1997) which established that the principle of admission authorities operating catchment areas as part of their oversubscription criteria in allocating school places was lawful providing that in so doing authorities are not in breach of the Greenwich judgement.

63

consultation on altering admissions criteria, resulting in a cut in the number of places ring-fenced for local applicants residing in the borough.20 These recent events have exposed double standards on the issue of selective education from local leading politicians.

Despite the local Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament for Sutton and Cheam being reported as voicing his concerns over the issue he voted - along with sixty one Labour rebels and his Lib Dem colleague in Carshalton and Wallington - to abolish all existing grammar schools.21 In addition to this, it should be noted that Mr Burstow was the newly elected Chief Whip for the Lib Dem parliamentary party at the time. In this position Mr Burstow was charged with ensuring his parliamentary colleagues voted in accordance with the party whip and that a high turnout of Lib Dem MPs were present in the division lobby to vote accordingly. His efforts secured an 88.9% turnout to vote with Labour rebels to abolish the nation’s remaining grammar

schools. It should also be noted that both local MPs ‘cut their political teeth’ as Sutton councillors in the 1980s through to 2002. Early on in his political career, as a councillor, Paul Burstow supported a council motion signalling opposition to Sutton’s selective schools.22 Despite utterances from the Council’s political leadership and local MPs that they oppose the strictures of the Greenwich Judgment and any efforts from local schools to change admissions policies, they have a consistent record of ideological opposition to the selective grammar school system. Considering Sutton’s educational achievements as an LEA are, in part, due to the success of our grammar school system, parents, pupils and residents deserve clarity and honesty on where the local political leadership stands on the issue. The ambiguity on the issue, having been built up over a generation, needs to be cleared.

20. Sutton Guardian, 9 April 2009 21. Education and Inspections Bill — New Clause "39" — Retention of selection by ability or aptitude after parent ballot — 24 May 2006 at 17:30, at which Mr Burstow (Sutton & Cheam) and Tom Brake MP (Carshalton & Wallington) voted with 59 Labour MPs and 56 Lib Dem Commons colleagues to abolish selective grammar schools. In addition to this, it should be noted that Mr Burstow was the newly appointed Chief Whip for the Lib Dem parliamentary party at the time. 22. Full Council, 19 October 1987. 23. Photo credit: Haverstock Associates

Wallington County Grammar School is one of five schools in the Borough with a wholly selective admissions policy.

The rebuilding of Stanley Park High School aims to help increase standards for all children attending schools in the Borough.23


64


Background: Council Child Care Functions and the ‘Corporate Parent’ Local authorities have statutory duties under the Children Acts 1989 and 2004 to make arrangements to ensure that in discharging their functions, they have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. This includes the provision of child social services. Following the election of the New Labour Government in 1997, changes have taken place in local government social care functions with regard to ‘looked after children’, ie ‘children in care’. The incoming administration took steps to address a number of scandals during the 1990s involving child abuse in residential homes in England and Wales. A significant culmination of the concerns surrounding children in care was Sir William Utting’s report published in November 1997. This report contributed to a policy of greater emphasis on adoption rather than resident care home solutions.24 The then Secretary of State for Health described the report as:

“[A] woeful tale of failure at all levels to provide a secure and decent childhood for some of the most vulnerable children. It covers the lives of children whose home circumstances were so bad that those in

authority, to use the jargon, took them into care. The report reveals that, in far too many cases, not enough care was then taken.”25

In 1998 the Department of Health launched the ‘Quality Protects’ programme to support councils in transforming the management and delivery of children's social services. The programme led to the development of a number of key indicators of excessive movement between placements, and set outcome targets for all aspects of looked-after children's lives.26 The Quality Protects programme introduced the concept of the ‘Corporate Parent’. This is an enduring concept and one of deep significance to the provision of child social care by a local council. As the corporate parent of looked after children, a local authority has a legal and moral duty to provide the kind of loyal

Looked After Children: Where Are Our Vulnerabilities?

24. Utting, Sir William. (1997). People Like Us: The Report on the Review of Safeguards for Children Living Away from Home. London: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. 25. The Rt Hon. Frank Dobson MP, House of Commons Debate, 19 November 1997 vol 301 cc327-38, at 3.33pm 26. Children, Schools and Families Committee, Third Report, House of Commons, (9 March 2009), ‘2. Care system in England’, para. 17-18

The terrible cases of Victoria Climbie and Baby P have led to further reforms in the safeguarding of children.

65

support that any good parent would provide for their own children. According to the Government’s own definition: ‘the local authority must do at least what a good parent would do.’27 Sutton Council is therefore a corporate parent with a moral and legal duty to ‘looked after children’ in its care. This means councillors are corporate parents with a duty to do the best for the children in care. The term is ill defined and does not sit comfortably. ‘Corporate’ has a bureaucratic connotation creating an impression of organisational frameworks and systems. ‘Parenting’ lends itself to a warmer and more familial outlook. Both words sit in notable contrast to each other. The important responsibilities of the corporate parent need to come into sharper focus. They need to be made far more intuitive to the actual corporate parents involved and the wider public. This is particularly vital given the recent tragedies in cases such as Baby P in the London Borough of Haringey. ‘Insufficient’: How is Sutton doing? The ‘Joint Area Review’ (JAR) carried out by Ofsted concluded that Sutton’s services for ‘looked after children’ are ‘adequate’ with specific issues in several key areas. The inspection focuses on five ‘insufficiencies’, they are: • The role of the ‘corporate parent’ is

insufficiently developed. • Instability of short-term placements.

• Insufficient supported accommodation for care leavers.

• Insufficient systematic engagement of young people in service planning and design.

• Insufficient access to information regarding young people or involvement in the creation of the role of the Council as a corporate parent.28

The JAR gives a critical account of how the corporate parenting role is insufficiently developed.29 It found that there are ‘insufficient opportunities and mechanisms for councillors to meet their ambitions for looked after children and young people.’ It also goes on to criticise the lack of involvement of councillors in children and young people services and that, despite training being on offer, there appears to be a lack of awareness of the corporate parent role. It states that ‘Councillors have no access to the systematic analysis of the views of looked after children in the borough and information they have received about their educational attainment contains inaccuracies.’30 The Council’s ‘Children and Young People’s Plan 2009/10 ’ has set itself a ‘positive contribution priority’ to ‘enhance

27. See ‘Every Child Matters’ definition: -http://www.everychildmatters.gov.uk/deliveringservices/multiagencyworking/glossary/?asset=glossary&id=22407 28. Joint Area Review, p. 10-13 29. Ibid. p.11 30. Ibid.

“A local authority has a legal and moral duty to provide the kind of loyal support that any good parent would provide for their own children.”


66


member engagement with looked after children and care leavers.31

The Council is right to respond to the JAR’s concerns over the development of the corporate parent role and the need for better training. This is not solely a failure of the administration of the Council, it is also a failure of some elected councillors to take sufficient steps to inform themselves of the duties placed upon the Council as corporate parents.

The JAR highlights insufficiencies in supported accommodation for ‘care leavers’. It does, however, highlight some improvement (although below the national average) in the percentage of care leavers living in suitable accommodation in the year 2007/08 but fails to provide statistical evidence for this.32 The report is particularly sharp in its criticism of the Council’s failure to provide sufficient supported accommodation for care leavers and that those with ‘complex’ needs are given ‘considerable’ use of bed and breakfast accommodation outside the borough.

Insufficient information is provided to care leavers in relation to housing and managing their finances.33 Young people emerging as care leavers must be given sufficient support to help them become independent as young adults. Improving the inadequate support for acquiring accommodation after leaving care should be a priority for the Council’s endeavours in this area. Difficulties for young people leaving the system do not vanish overnight. Also, it is not right that bed and breakfast use is ‘considerable’ outside of the borough for care leavers, especially when the borough is the care leaver’s home. The transition from care to independence as a young adult should not be made more difficult by removing the care leaver from the neighbourhoods they are accustomed to. The JAR does find that there are ‘pathways’ to smooth transition in leaving care with regard to post-age16 learning provision. Access to training and employment programmes is deemed to be good. This is to be welcomed but it needs to be coupled with the stability that comes with good support for fostering independence, including the management of finances and preparation for accessing housing/accommodation when leaving care. Education outcomes for looked after children are deemed to be ‘satisfactory’ overall. The eligible Year 11 pupils taking

31. Children and Young People’s Plan 2009-10, London Borough of Sutton, p.23 32. Joint Area Review, p.13. This is a common theme in the JAR and it should be noted that the report does not provide detailed footnotes or references for many of its contentions and findings. The Council should consider being more robust in requiring its inspectors’ evaluations to be more clearly evidence based. How questioning is the Council of its inspectors? Is it too submissive to the tick-box inspection regime from Central Government and its agencies? 33. Ibid.

Councillors need to understand and respond to their role as corporate parents

67

at least one GCSE course was in line with the national average for 2006/07 but considerably below in 2005/06. The numbers of looked after children achieving one or more A* grades in GCSEs and GCVQ courses are variable but for the last two years have been above the national average. Key Stage 2 achievements in Level 4 Maths and English has declined over the last three years and no looked after children achieved above Level 4 in 2007 for these courses. Looked after children deserve the best the borough can offer them. Educational achievement will be a key indicator of how the corporate parent is doing in this area. Sutton is fortunate to have such a good school system and the Council should look at ways to utilise this excellence to benefit those in its care. For example, what preparations are made for looked after children to take advantage of Sutton’s selective school system, via the ’11 plus’ entry examination? The JAR sees an insufficiency in engagement of looked after children and young people in ‘consultation, evaluation and decision making processes for service planning and design’. Views are not collected or analysed in a way that will enable them to inform the development of the service. Looked after children are service users. As clients of the Council and the services it provides, their views matter. More should be done to collect their views and to reflect them wherever possible.

Waking Up The Corporate Parent The Council’s training regime needs to be looked at and, if necessary, be subjected to wholesale reform to ensure that elected members of the Council and officers are aware of the legal duties placed upon them. With increased awareness, councillors will be able to take a closer look at the functions of the Council in children’s care services. Without increased awareness and understanding of the corporate parenting role, the Council may not be living up to the legal and moral duties placed upon it, to ensure that it is doing what a ‘good parent’ would do for the children in its care. By no means is this a cure all for the problems facing Sutton’s looked after children. The insufficiencies outlined by the Ofsted Report demonstrate a failure in Sutton Council to do its very best for looked after children, as in its role as a corporate parent. Increased awareness among councillors can only help to complement the hard work of Sutton’s dedicated staff to do the very best for some of the most vulnerable in our society.


68


So, what is a Special Educational Need? Section 312 of the Education Act [1996] gives the definition of a person with an SEN as possessing a ‘significantly greater difficulty in learning than the majority of children of the same age’ or having ‘a disability which prevents or hinders them from making use of educational facilities of a kind generally provided for children of the same age in schools within the area of the local education authority.’ Sutton Council devised its SEN policy in 2004 and has implemented it through the ‘Inclusion and SEN Action Plan (2004-2009)’. The driver behind this is to make its work in this area consistent with the Special Education Needs Code of Practice (2001) issued by the Department for Education and Skills in 2001.34 The Code of Practice provides the following principles:35 1. A child with special educational needs

should have their needs met. 2. The special educational needs of

children would normally be met in mainstream schools or settings.

3. The views of the child should be sought and taken into account.

4. Parents have a vital role to play in supporting their child’s education.

5. Children with a special educational need should be offered full access to a broad, balanced and relevant education, including an appropriate curriculum.

The purpose of the Code of Practice is to give practical guidance to LEAs for the discharge of their legal duties under Part IV of the Education Act [1996]. It also provides guidance to governing bodies of maintained schools and to other agencies, including health and social services. Its policies are intended to enable young people with SENs to ‘reach their full potential, to be included fully in their school communities and make a successful transition to adulthood.’36 Pupils with SENs may require additional services to help them reach their potential. Other pupils, albeit a small minority, will have SENs of a complexity or severity requiring the LEA to arrange special provision for educational services in order to cater for difficulties that pupils face. As an LEA Sutton has a responsibility to provide services in accordance with the Code of Practice. In order to meet these challenges, Sutton’s SEN policy 2009-2011 enshrines the principles of:37 1. Inclusion - enabling children with

learning difficulties and disabilities to participate fully in family, school and community life. We see this as the key to safeguarding and promoting the wellbeing of children, to children achieving their potential, and to families leading as “ordinary” lives as possible.

2. Partnership - arrangements whereby children with learning difficulties and disabilities and parent/carers work

34. Special Education Needs: Code of Practice, DfES/581/2001. 35. Ibid. p. 7. 36. Ibid. p. 6. 37. Special Education Needs Policy 2009-2011. Children, Young People and Learning Services, Sutton Council, March 2009.

Special Educational Needs

69

alongside statutory and voluntary organisations in planning and reviewing services and holding them to account.

3. Integration - meeting the needs of children holistically by working effectively across organisational boundaries.

4. Early intervention and access to services - responding quickly when a child’s needs are first identified, and offering support and services to prevent problems arising in the first place, rather than waiting for crises to occur.

5. Planning for transitions - anticipating important life changes and putting in place appropriate support. All transitions for children with learning difficulties and disabilities are important, none more so than the transition to adult services for school leavers.

The need for additional or different educational provision is provided in three stages: 1) School Action, 2) School Action Plus, 3) a statement of SEN. School Action and School Action plus are defined in the SEN Code of Practice as follows:

School Action: when a class or subject teacher identifies that a pupil has special educational needs they provide interventions that are additional to or different from those provided as part of the school’s usual differentiated curriculum offer and strategies. School Action Plus: when the class or subject teacher and the SENCO

(Special Educational Needs Coordination) are provided with advice or support from outside specialists, so that alternative interventions additional or different strategies to those provided for the pupil through School Action can be put in place. The SENCO usually takes the lead although day-to-day provision continues to be the responsibility of the class or subject teacher.38

If problems persist, despite the additional support provided by School Action Plus, a Statement of SEN may come into play. This is the result of a multi-professional assessment of the pupil’s needs, in order to decide if the LEA needs to make further special educational provision. The LEA will then agree the provision and the pupil will be issued with an SEN Statement. The Statement acts as a legalistic contract between the LEA and the parents of the SEN pupil, determining the provision required after examination of the pupil’s detailed educational history and needs.39 Each individual school has a day-to-day responsibility for its SEN pupils. It determines and publishes its own school SEN policy detailing how it intends to put the principles from the Code of Practice into everyday practice. In partnership with the Council, a proportion of the school’s budget is set specifically for provision for pupils with SENs, with additional funding requirements arising from SEN statements. National figures show that 69% of SEN expenditure goes to SEN pupils with Statements.40

38. SEN Code of Practice. p.206. 39. A helpful definition is contained in Dilemmas of Difference, Inclusion and Disability, (Routledge), Brahm Norwich, 2007. p.47. 40. Evidence supplied by the Audit Commission to the Education and Skills Committee, ‘Special Educational Needs’, House of Commons Library, Third Report of Session 2005-2006, Volume II, p. 359.


70


So, how is Sutton doing? The JAR deems Sutton’s contribution of local services to improving outcomes for children and young people with learning difficulties and or disabilities as ‘good’.41 The report identifies major strengths as: • very good multi-agency work in the

early identification, assessment and support for children and families with SENs.

• effective and well targeted support for children and families provided by the children with disabilities social care team.

• the good overall effectiveness of most schools and specialist provision, and the effective support to schools provided by a very strong advice and improvement service.42

These achievements are to be celebrated and the hard work of the Council’s staff to be fully acknowledged.

However, the report identifies the relatively high proportion of children and young people with SEN statements and those educated outside the borough as important weaknesses in this area. The Challenges: High Numbers of SEN Statements and SEN Pupils Educated Outside The Borough 1. Too Many Statements? Sutton has a high amount of SEN pupils. Figures obtained by the Education and Training Policy Group show that the LEA has issued 622 new SEN statements over the last five financial years.43 This is compared to the Royal Borough of Kingston-upon-Thames which has issued 367 SEN statements over the same period. It should be noted that Kingston’s population is approximately 150,000, compared to Sutton’s 180,000. Curiously, the London Borough of Merton issued exactly the same number of Statements as Sutton at 622 over five years. Notably, Merton has a similar size population to Sutton at approximately 190,000. According to 2005 figures, pupils with some degree of SEN account for 18% of the school population with 3% having Statements, 10% on School Action and 5% with School Action Plus,44 see Figure 9. Nationally, figures show that approximately 3% of school pupils overall have SEN statements.45 This varies greatly between LEAs, but Sutton is

41. Joint Area Review, p.13-14. 42. Ibid. 43. Figures from November 2008, obtained by the Education and Training Policy Group. 44. Norwich, p.47-48. 45. Ibid.

Figure 9.

71

regarded as having a high number of ‘statemented’ pupils. Using school census figures given to the Education and Training Policy Group, the number of pupils with SEN statements in Sutton stands at 1,07046 this means approximately 7% of pupils in Sutton have an SEN statement. This is above the national average even with the marked variation between LEAs within a range of 1-5%.47 We need to understand why Sutton has so many pupils with SEN statements and to analyse their veracity. Government research has shown that ‘low-statementing’ LEAs on average score higher on SEN effectiveness.48 Investigations in high and low statementing areas demonstrate that in

low-statementing LEAs, pupils with and without SENs performed slightly better on average than the national averages for performance in English and Maths at Key stages 1 and 3 over a three-year period. Sutton should examine if reliance on SEN statementing is having a negative impact on the educational achievement of resident pupils. The same research, carried out by the DfES, as the DSCF was then known, showed that LEAs which had reduced the number of SEN statements issued, also had a reduced demand for statements.49 Sutton will need to examine if it is perceived as a ‘soft touch’ on Statements; whether it is easier to obtain a Statement of SEN, and whether it is desirable to reduce the number of statements issued. Figure 10.

46. SEN Transport, Scrutiny Overview Committee, 20 November 2007, p.4. 47. Reducing Reliance on Statements: An Investigation into Local Authority Practice and Outcomes, Anne Pinney, Audit Commission, (DfES Research Paper) 11 February 2004 48. Ibid. p.7. 49. Ibid. p.25


72


The Education and Skills Committee posited the view that SEN statement funding is often eaten up by the bureaucracy that surrounds the statementing process itself.50 Research has indicated that in low-statementing areas LEAs are spending more on specialist support overall for pupils (with and without Statements) and that they spend more on provision for pupils with Statements. Moreover, low-statementing LEAs reported greater increases in overall spending on SEN provision.51 Analysis of these expenditure trends for low-statementing authorities counters the assumption that reduced statementing is a cost cutting exercise. Sutton should also explore whether funds saved by reducing bureaucracy, through reduced statementing, could be invested in greater support for pupils with SEN. In summary, research indicates that there appear to be key benefits in reducing LEA reliance on Statements. They are identified as: • A more equitable distribution of SEN

resources, better reflecting the pattern of needs in individual schools.

• Greater support for more pupils, including those receiving School Action and School Action Plus.

• Less SEN-related bureaucracy and paperwork, freeing up SENCOs and other support teams. This will also allow more time for classroom observations, greater work with colleagues working with pupils through reduced administration.

• Improved relations with parents and schools, reducing the struggle of

obtaining Statements and potentially adversarial negotiations in the legal-style contractual environment.

2. SEN Transport Sutton Council’s Liberal Democrat administration prompted ferocious controversy in late 2008 and early 2009 with its proposals to change SEN pupils’ school transport arrangements. Changes to transport arrangements were needed, but the way in which the proposals were aired and consultations carried out represents a deep failure for this Council. The background is that unsustainable pressures had accumulated on the Council’s General Fund in order to pay for the transport of SEN pupils to specialist schools outside the London Borough of Sutton. Rapid increases in the diagnosis of pupils with ASDs meant that in-borough mainstream schools were unable to provide adequate support services. Between March 2003 and August 2007 the number of pupils requiring specialist placements outside the borough rose from 107 to 236 pupils, an increase of 120%. In accordance with its legal duties under section 509 (1) of the Education Act [1996] the LEA has to provide transport, if necessary, free of charge. These pressures reached breaking point when the 2007/08 SEN transport budget reached £3,591,000 with £591,000 overspent. In short, this was a runaway budget. Things had to change. Costs had sky-rocketed because of a number of factors: the number of children transported; the number of

50. Education and Skills Committee, House of Commons, p.359. 51. Pinney, pp. 28-30. Note: This research is based on samples from 18 LEAs on differing approaches to reported SEN expenditure.

73

routes and loading efficiency of pupils on and off vehicles; the length and the cost of each route. In some instances the length of routes to and from specialist placements were many miles. Efficiency in the loading of pupils (literally the number of pupils per vehicle) and the sheer distances involved in the transport of pupils to and from school showed no sign of improving.52 Sutton was right to examine the unsustainable costs of this budget. The Council sent out a consultation pack to the parents and carers of SEN pupils - 545 packs were distributed. This effort garnered a response of 128. The vast majority of responses were ‘overwhelmingly negative’ to the Council’s prime proposal of ‘Pick-up Points’.53 The Pick-up Points would replace the door-to-door service for SEN pupils after certain assessment criteria had been met. Negative parental feedback to the consultation included: 1. Parents’ preference for the existing

door-to-door collection arrangements.

2. Concern that if designated Pick-up Points were introduced parents would have difficulty getting other children to school.

3. Parents concerns that the stress for the families will be increased with the introduction of Pick-Up Points and consequently that there would be an increased demand for respite care with additional cost burdens entailed.

4. Anxiety among parents about the health and wellbeing of children with the introduction of Pick-up Points and the additional challenges this would create in a daily routine.

5. Parental concern that they be late to work as a result of journey times to Pick-up Points, thus placing employment at risk.

The proposed policies attracted considerable political controversy with pointed criticism from the Opposition and an Independent Councillor. The Council’s image was damaged in local and region print and broadcast media, including London Tonight. Two petitions were lodged against the policy changes. The amount of money which would be saved by the changes also attracted criticism. The reduction was projected at £200,000 from a predicted total budget of £4,300,000, a saving of roughly 4.7% overall. Any savings in Council budgets are to be welcomed, but given the controversy and distress of service users - both parents, carers and SEN pupils alike - was a saving of approximately 4.7% from the overall budget really worth it? A balance must be struck between cost savings and efficiency, and the impact that such savings will have on service-users. As a result of the media furore, the hard work of many members of the Council staff was damaged, not to mention the corporate reputation of the Council as a whole.

52. Report from Sharman Lawson, Executive Head of Parent, Pupil and Student Services, Scrutiny Overview Committee, 20th November 2007, p.3. 53. Report of Executive Head of Parent, Pupil and Student Services, ‘Review of SEN Transport Policy’, Scrutiny Overview Committee (25 November 2008), The Executive (1 December 2008), p.2.


74


Developing Local Provision Expected Outcomes To support the development of new provision within the borough for children and young people with ASD.

Planned expansion of new bases at Green Wrythe Primary School, Glenthorne High School and Carew Manor School achieved on time. Required support to Stanley Park High School for the development of their base.

To review out of borough placements in independent and non-maintained special schools and plan for those needs to be met within the borough.

Ongoing analysis of data relating to out-borough placements and opportunities identified to invest to save. Review of these placements at Year 5 and Years 9/10 with a view to bringing pupils back into borough at next phase transfer.

Feedback from parents shows that the Council did not communicate well with its stakeholders in this area. This is ironic considering that improved communications in the provision of services to SEN pupils and parents has been a priority for the Council.54 As a corollary to the above points, Opposition Spokesman for Education, Councillor Peter Wallis summed up the issue with the following points:

“This process started as a proposal to save £360,000. This figure has been reduced to approximately £200,000 by taking children with Autistic Spectrum Disorders out of the equation when considering pickup points. It is possible that the number of children who can use pickup points will be further reduced; in addition, every child will have to have a risk assessment to ascertain whether the use of a pickup point is appropriate; as yet the cost of these risk assessments is not known. If the number of children who are able to

use pickup points is small the question must be asked how viable will that be. “At the conclusion of the whole process, it would appear that cost savings would be minimal. The worry and stress that parents have endured in addition to the stress already in their lives will not have achieved any meaningful savings for the Council. There is nothing wrong with looking critically at budgets - perhaps there are savings to be made in other ways; looking at the way transport is organised. This Liberal Democrat Council must do more to save money where it can, whilst providing the core services on which many vulnerable members of our community rely, but it must do this with a human face and with humane compassion for those who need our help.” 55

Because Sutton’s schools cannot cope with the rapid rise in demand for specialist places, SEN pupils have to travel far and wide, outside the borough, to access the support they need. Sutton must meet the needs of SEN

Figure 11.

54. Children’s Transport Scrutiny Task Group – Final Report, Chaired by Councillor Sheila Siggins, Learning Services Performance Committee, 5 July 2005, p.2 55. Full Council, Monday 15th December 2008.

75

pupils within the borough, thus reducing the need for expensive transport costs. Sutton’s SEN Action Plan (2009-11) has set itself ongoing targets including those shown in Figure 11. The Council’s efforts to bring SEN provision into the borough, in order to prevent long and costly travel for pupils to special placements outside of Sutton, is to be welcomed. Cost savings are unlikely to be immediate, and nor is it likely that all specialist education needs can be provided within the borough, but the goal of invest to save is a prudent one. Investment soon will save money later. It should also be noted that providing specialist provision within our borough boundaries has an economic imperative, but there is a strong moral one too. With specialist placements closer to home the lives of parents, carers and the pupils themselves will hopefully be improved as a natural consequence.

Conclusions Secondary Education Sutton has much to be proud of in its work surrounding children and young people, but just like virtually all other areas of policy and performance, it is a borough of contradictions. Our schools are excellent. As an LEA, Sutton is rampant on national league tables. But the jewel in the crown of our educational asset, the selective school system, is not representative of the achievements of resident pupils.

The excellent educational apparatus is here but it is not being put to work to the benefit of young people who live here. Pupils from outside the borough outnumber resident pupils in every grammar school in Sutton. In contrast, in our non-selective secondary schools resident pupils outnumber out of borough pupils in every school except one – St. Philomena’s. It is easy to see why our grammar schools are so popular because they are excellent. We should be justifiably proud of our non-selective secondary schools too. For decades the political leadership of Sutton Council has been undermining Sutton’s grammar schools, partially through silence but also actively. This report has uncovered disturbing double standards from the local Liberal Democrat political establishment. The Council’s Lib Dem administration has consistently refused to publicly signal their support for grammar schools when challenged to do so by the Conservative Opposition.

The borough’s two MPs - both formerly Sutton councillors - are not immune from criticism. Both have voted to abolish the United Kingdom’s remaining grammar schools despite posturing as defenders of ‘Sutton Schools For Sutton Children’ locally. In fact, one of them supported a Council motion opposing selective education in Sutton.


We should be justifiably proud of our non-

selective secondary schools too.

76


Primary Education Similarly, the LEA has done nothing to prepare resident pupils for the grammar school examination. With such an excellent resource on our doorstep, should the Council not be using its influence on primary schools to open the door of opportunity to local children? We are also justly proud of our primary schools and because between 82-86% of primary school pupils live in the borough, they give a good indication of the educational achievement of resident pupils at primary level. However, there are some significant variations in attainment that require further examination. Regardless of the favourable extrapolation of attainment in averages supplied by the DSCF, why are over half of primary school pupils achieving below average scores for Key Stage 2 core subjects?

Most of Sutton’s primary schools are achieving above average attainment levels for core subjects but some are missing targets by a long way. Here is an apparent contradiction. We need to unravel it. Looked After Children Are Council Clients Too The test of a decent society is how it treats its vulnerable members. Sutton has

legal and moral duties to look after vulnerable children. Over the last decade, this has been a fast moving policy area and Sutton has become a ‘corporate parent’.

Despite being a clunky, unappealing and uncomfortable tone the duties are clear: Sutton must do what a good parent would do in promoting the welfare of children and young people in its social care. This duty needs to have greater understanding among councillors, officers and the general public. With heightened awareness even higher standards of care will follow. A recent review by Ofsted has shown ‘insufficient’ performance in several areas. It also highlights major strengths. Sutton does some things very well and other things not so well. This presents a contradiction. As this report has pointed out: children and young people in social care are service-users, they are clients of the Council. It should always hold this in mind when working to drive up the standards of its service. Special Educational Needs Our borough has above average numbers of young people with SEN statements. We need to know why. But what we need to do now is to ensure that the highest standards of specialist provision are given to young people who already find day-to-day life difficult. In doing so, we must also remember we owe a duty to the parents and carers of SEN children and young people.

Should the Council not be using its influence on primary schools to open the door of opportunity

to local children?

Sutton must do what a good parent would do.

77

The policy disaster surrounding SEN transport illustrates how the Council failed carers and parents, as well as the direct service users themselves. Disastrously, the political leadership of the Council and the organs through which it communicates could only see the savings and not the people it would impact upon. Firstly, why are we transporting out vulnerable young people with SENs far and wide for specialist provision? Inevitably there will be SEN pupils who need out-of-borough help, but we need to do our level best to find ways to provide it closer to home.

Secondly, is Sutton unwittingly reliant on SEN statements? Research shows that there are clear benefits to reducing reliance on statements. Benefits include

reduced paperwork and an increase in time spent directly with SEN pupils. Sutton needs to be brutally honest with itself about how it deals with SEN statementing. The contradiction here could be that a cultural eagerness to provide SEN statements is actually an obstacle to higher standards of provision for SENs.


The benefits of improved SEN statementing will help the development of vulnerable children as well as being in the interests of prudence for the Local Authority.

78


79

The State of Sutton: A Borough of Contradictions Borough Wellbeing: Youth Provision, Health, and Leisure

Borough Wellbeing: Youth Provision, Health, and Leisure

80


Introduction Youth Provision: Effective, Not Expensive When times are tough and budgets are tight, youth provision - as a discretionary budget in local government - is normally the first thing to be cut. The Borough has a young population of approximately 22,500 people aged 10-19, forming approximately 13% of Sutton residents.1

The Council currently spends £1.7million on youth services.2 Sutton residents appear to allocate significant importance to youth services. Research commissioned by the Council indicates that 48% of residents think ‘activities for teenagers’ is an issue requiring the most improvement.3 This is unsurprising given that the presence of young people on our streets can cause alarm and foster fear of antisocial behaviour. This fear can be warranted and unwarranted.4 The link between effective youth provision and reductions in antisocial behaviour is established. It is therefore disappointing that Sutton Council’s efforts are largely ineffective. The recent closure of three youth groups and inadequate support for struggling community groups shows that effective community-based youth provision does not feature highly in the Liberal Democrat administration’s list of priorities. The youth provision offered tends to be

confused, lacking direction and a duplication of school-based youth activities. Cultural barriers are preventing effective provision of youth services in Sutton, the most pervasive being a deeply ingrained risk aversion to trusting our voluntary sector organisations. A lack of leadership from the political administration in the

Civic Offices has lead to an overly cautious outlook that only goes for quick hit short-term provision of youth services. As it stands youth services in Sutton seem to replicate PSHE lessons.5

1. Figures from Sutton and Merton Primary Care Trust, Joint Strategic Needs Assessment 2008, Section 3: Community and Health Profile (Core Dataset). The male and female population are almost at parity. 2. For breakdowns of Sutton Council’s total gross spends, see: http://www.sutton.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=3352&p=0 3. Place Survey 2008-09, Ipsos MORI. 4. Local research indicates that young people are particularly blighted by the fear of crime of people in the 20s and 30s age bracket, see: Fear of Crime, A Report of the Sustainable Communities Scrutiny Committee, March 2009, p.17. 5. Personal Social and Health Education, see: http://www.qcda.gov.uk/7185.aspx.

Some youth provision in Sutton replicates schemes offered elsewhere.

81


We contend that the short-term nature of Sutton’s youth services is programme-focused, rather than person-focused. A key example of this is the controversial project, The Sutton Life Centre. This multimillion pound project has been fashioned as a cure-all for youth services in Sutton. It is our view that youth provision must be effective and long-term rather than expensive and short-term. Most importantly, we should allow our voluntary youth workers sector, within the Borough and without, to shine. Ingrained Health Inequalities The most important component to a good quality of life is health. Despite having some of the best health outcomes in London, there are ingrained health inequalities varying from Ward to Ward in Sutton.6 The most noticeable difference can be seen in the socioeconomic divides in the Borough. Poor and more densely populated areas appear to be more at risk from cardiovascular and cancer related mortality with Wards like Sutton Central, St. Helier, Wandle Valley and the Wrythe featuring the highest. Hospital admissions for these Wards are on average higher than Wards like Cheam, Belmont and Beddington South. These variations are also reflected in life expectancy, although life expectancy has risen considerably since the period 1995-1997, across the board. Female life expectancy outstrips male in every Ward with Carshalton Central being the closest.

The differences in life expectancy are stark. For example, there is a difference of nearly nine years for men and seven and a half for women between the most and least deprived Wards in our Borough.7 Again, the socioeconomic status of the area in which residents live seems to correlate with health status.

Sutton is a Borough of Contradictions in health needs with some areas facing far greater challenges than others. We need to understand why, so that we can push for measures to equalise health and wellbeing outcomes across the London Borough of Sutton. Heritage, Leisure and Sport Our Borough has a rich heritage and, as outlined in the Planning section of The State of Sutton, this contributes to the localised character of our area. According to English Heritage, Sutton has six Scheduled Monuments, 174 Listed Buildings, and one Registered Park. Whitehall in Cheam, Nonsuch Mansion in Nonsuch Park and Little Holland House in Carshalton attract much of the Council’s attention.

6. The State of Sutton: An Economic, Social and Environmental Profile of Sutton, Capital Ambition, December 2007, p.8. 7. Joint Needs Assessment 2008, Executive Summary, p.5

The 18th Century Nonsuch Mansion came into public ownership in 1937.

82


The Council cannot be responsible for all of our local heritage. As we have seen, with the exception of Whitehall (thankfully now refurbished after much lobbying) places like the Old Rectory (the Ecology Centre in Carshalton) and The Lodge are falling into a state of disrepair. These are community assets and we are the caretakers for the next generation who, in turn, will be the caretakers for their successors. Council policies need to reflect this and make full use of our voluntary community in the preservation and enhancement of our heritage. As we have outlined, there are health inequalities in our Borough that have made where we live a determining factor of our state of health. Sport and leisure are central ingredients for a decent quality of life and wellbeing. Figures from Sport England’s Active People Survey show that Sutton has a below average participation in sport compared to the rest of London and England. The Olympics are fast approaching and present Sutton, as a London Borough, with a once in a lifetime opportunity to utilise such a global event. As a local authority Sutton needs to see how it can invest long-term in sporting facilities within the Borough. Are we maximising the potential of Sutton Arena as much as possible? Where is the political leadership on the issue? The Borough’s schools have some excellent sporting facilities. These can be established without the involvement of the Council. For example, Nonsuch High School for Girls has a partnership with the David Lloyd Sports and Leisure Club.8

Other schools have excellent and accessible facilities, why not work with

the schools to bring them to wider use? The kind of confusion created by the Council’s political leadership over Cheam Leisure Centre does not inspire confidence in Sutton residents in its capacity to provide leisure facilities. The geographical distribution of leisure facilities is not equitable across the board with the western part of the Borough suffering in comparison to other areas.

Leisure in our Borough is not just confined to sport. A core part of the Council’s leisure function is its library service. The library in the Civic Offices in St. Nicholas Way is considered by the Council to be the jewel in the crown of leisure provision. While the library in the centre of Sutton is a valuable resource and used by many residents, we need to ask whether other libraries across the Borough are losing out to the centre of Sutton. Visitor numbers to the Civic Offices library are strong but in other areas they are far smaller. The spectre of the Sutton Life Centre will place an as yet unknown pressure on Council budgets. What impact will it have on our library service? Can we do even more to expand the accessibility of our library service?

8. See: http://www.davidlloyd.co.uk/. The club is situated on the school grounds.

An innovative project with David Lloyd Leisure has given girls at Nonsuch High School access to superb sporting facilities on site.

83


Effective use of youth services can provide a real alternative to crime and antisocial behaviour on Sutton’s streets, without making young people feel ‘invisible’.9 This benefits not just the young people in question; it has very real benefits for the local community too. Statistics used by one of the leading voluntary youth organisations in the United Kingdom, Clubs for Young People (CYP), show that 52% of young people say that being involved in their local club had changed their lives.10 Research also indicates that on housing estates where young people are at risk of falling into antisocial activities, an established club for young people which provides somewhere to go, something to do and someone to talk to, can reduce the presence of drugs and contribute to

reductions in crime. See Figure 1.11 ‘Boredom’ is frequently cited by young people as a reason why they or their friends get into trouble. Research by the Department of Education at Brunel University has shown that boredom among young people is considered by them to be a major driver for crime and antisocial behaviour.12 The responses show that the majority of both male and female young people agree with the proposition that boredom causes crime, as shown in Figure 2. Boredom is not - and never should be - an excuse for crime and antisocial behaviour. But as a Council we need to examine the root causes of these behaviours before they happen and so prior to the damage they can cause.

9. Annual Report 2005/06: Supporting young people to change communities, Clubs for Young People (CYP), p 6. 10. Source: CYP Research 2005. 11. Ibid. 12. What Works? An Exploration of the Value of Informal Education Work with Young People, A Report of Research Completed for the National Association of Clubs for Young People, by Dr Simon Bradford, Professor Valerie Hey and Ms Fin Cullen, Department for Education, Brunel University, March 2004, p. 36.

Youth Services: Cutting Antisocial Behaviour

The Effects of an Established Youth Club on Housing Estates

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Reduction inpresense of cocaine

Reduction in overalldrug activity

Reduction in crimeoverall

Pe

rce

nta

ge

re

du

cti

on

s

Figure 1.

Presence of cocaine

84


Preventing crime and antisocial behaviour in young people is better than having to cure it. In Sutton we have no reason to expect this to be any different. We have explored the concepts of ‘signal crime’ and ‘signal disorders’ in the Crime, Antisocial Behaviour and Fear chapter earlier on in this report. It is obvious that bored young people hanging around on street corners can intimidate some residents, particularly older people, and can give the impression of signal disorder, therefore creating a fear of crime. Young people experience fear of crime as well, particularly from those in the 20s to 30s age bracket who may binge drink and become aggressive in the streets. Surveys carried out by the Safer Sutton Partnership Service (SSPS) show that young people generally have the same

fears as older residents, for example dark alleys, but that apprehension is more potent in relation to public transport.13 Disturbingly, evidence given to the SSPS and presented to a Council Committee shows that young people have said that people in an even younger age bracket (12 to 13 upwards) are a source of fear but that this is a “fact of life”.14 We believe that effective provision of youth services can help to reduce crime and antisocial behaviour.

We also note that young people can be the victims of antisocial behaviour and fear that surrounds it. It is clear that the effective provision of youth services has a role to play in reducing the fear of crime for young people as well.

13. Fear of Crime, Sustainable Communities Report, p. 5-6. 14. Ibid, p.6.

"Young people commit crime because of bordom"

51%

25%

8%

16%

42%

33%

10%15%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Stronglyagree/agree

Don't know Strongdisagree/disagree

Not stated

Male

Female

Figure 2.

“Young people commit crime because of boredom.”

Strongly

85


In the last three years, three youth groups have been shut down. Centre 21 in Alcorn Close, Sutton and Club Constellation on London Road, North Cheam were axed by Sutton Council and The Point café in Cheam, run by volunteers from a local church was also closed. Centre 21 has now been demolished to make way for the expensive Sutton Life Centre. This project has attracted considerable controversy on the grounds of cost in the local and regional media.15 The Council’s political leadership seems to have opted for expensive youth provision rather than effective options. The Life Centre is due to cost roughly £8.5million and has a new library, youth centre, with a climbing wall and a multi-use games area. The main attraction has been described as a multimedia indoor space to teach ‘citizenship’ to school children and teenagers complete with virtual reality drug dealers and the dangers of internet paedophiles.16 This new Centre will even include a movie-set style street.17 But does this really meet the needs of youth provision? Effective youth provision is person-based, providing young people with adult contact in order to build relationships. Often these relationships are not formed at home and the role of an outside adult mentor is needed.

Cultivating these relationships should be more than a ‘one-off’ experience. The method of providing the character building opportunities that foster respect and responsibility in young people, who may otherwise lack appropriate role models, takes time.18 It is developmental, not instant.

The Life Centre presents a facility, a building, and not a mentor figure for young people who want and need effective youth services. Will a young person who is buckling under the pressures of exam stress find the kind of advice and adult relationship-based support in a multimedia experience next to a climbing wall? We argue no.

15. Evening Standard, 5 May 2009. 16. ITV London Tonight, 6 May 2009. 17. See: http://www.architectsjournal.co.uk/news/sutton-life-centre-approved/1994418.article 18. What Works? CYP Research Paper, p. 51.

No Political Leadership: Effective, Not Expensive Provision

The one-off experience of the Sutton Life Centre is not an alternative to mentoring and relationship-based youth provision.

86


Spending the equivalent of 10% of the Council’s annual council tax intake will not address the need for ongoing character building youth provision. Prominent theorists in the field of youth provision put the argument that the establishment of “trust” is the cornerstone of the relationship between the youth worker and the young person. Without sufficient levels of trust, which in turn generate respect, relationships cannot be established.19 Simply creating an institution and giving youth provision credentials will not address the needs of Sutton’s young people. People create relationships, not buildings with gimmicks. This is the key to effective youth provision. We argue that the Sutton Life Centre presents a short-term approach to youth services. It makes the political leadership of the Council look busy. That is not to say that its aims are not worthy, or even noble, but its effectiveness is in question. Other commentators have said that the young person’s identification with their youth club contributed to the effectiveness of clubs.20 If we accept the view that youth groups, and the adult workers contained therein, have a powerful and positive effect on certain young people and that the character building or transformative effects are beneficial in reducing antisocial behaviour and a propensity to crime, it must therefore be counterproductive to cut three youth groups to make way for one, impersonal and expensive ‘one-off experience’ like the Sutton Life Centre.

Local government faces many budgetary burdens and it would be unrealistic to suggest otherwise. However, even though the benefits of youth groups are not necessarily tangible or quantifiable to the extent of appeasing the most stringent accountant, they do not have to cost the earth. Vast untapped resources of voluntary sector organisations have hitherto been wasted by the Council’s political leadership. There are national organisations which the Council’s leadership seem reluctant to draw inspiration from or to learn from. For example, Clubs for Young People (CYP) has 3,500 clubs and projects nationwide providing places to go and things to do for young people. CYP has 30,000 volunteers who work to build relationships with young people as positive role models. Organisations like CYP place an explicit emphasis on the need for relationship building and powerful role models. Sutton Council could learn a lot from their approach, which is not costly, but it seems to avoid doing so. In the introduction to this chapter we outlined what we see as the ‘replication’ or ‘duplication’ of school-based lessons in PSHE as included on the national curriculum. PSHE includes lessons in personal wellbeing, concentrating on the personal development of pupils including sex and relationships, as well as on drugs education.

19. For example London School of Economics professor Richard Sennett, Respect: The Formation of Character in an Age of Inequality, Allen Lane, 2003. 20. Bradford, Hey and Cullen in What Works?

87


In 2008 Sutton Council launched its ‘URBIE’ mobile youth service. The URBIE bus tours the Borough as a ‘detached youth service’ and by its own description

“the team aims to engage young people in group discussion to encourage values and opinions around topics such as alcohol and drug education, sexual health education, personal safety, community awareness and personal and social development.”21

So, what is the difference between the URBIE bus as a voluntary taxpayer-funded scheme and the compulsory PSHE lessons young people receive at school?

Answer: Not a lot. The URBIE bus is simply repeating the issues covered by PSHE in schools. Youth services, by their very nature, should not feel like school. The concept of a ‘detached youth team’ is a sound one. It means that the youth work is proactive and looks for young people it can provide services to. But we have to question whether the services it provides are effective in that they are repeating what has already been said in the classroom. The URBIE is an in-house service, provided by the Council and therefore subject to the political priorities of the ruling political party. We also have to question whether the Council leadership are the best arbiters for the provision of youth services. Elsewhere in this State of

Sutton report we have explored the notion that Sutton Council’s administration suffers from a conceited notion that it, and only it, is the solution to many of the problems our Borough faces. Volunteers engaged in youth work know what the issues are and they know what they want to do about it. They have the passion and the conviction. This is why they volunteered in the first place. They do not want to wait for the bureaucratic cogs of Sutton Council to grind into activity.

Sutton is home to a local organisation called ‘Elevate’.22 This is a Christian community organisation run as a limited company called Sutton Ramp Events Limited. Trained volunteers run events for up to 300 participants teaching young people how to skate and to ride, running competitions and fund raising sessions. The most notable competitions are held in the St. Helier Open Space. In their own words they aim to work with other community organisations to build an

21. See: http://www.suttonyouth.com/en/1/detachedyouthteam.html. 22. See: http://www.elevate-sutton.com/aboutus.html

The Urban Bus Information Education Vehicle (URBIE) moves around the borough aiming to reach children who would not or could not get to a youth club.

88


indoor skate/ramp facility in Sutton so that young people can skate and ride in safety at all times.

We pay tribute to the work of Elevate and the organisation’s chairman, Judith Smith, for their volunteer work with young people.23

It provides a great example of how the voluntary sector can flourish in providing youth facilities. David Cameron has expressed his exasperation at the relationship between community groups and organs of the State which can suppress the work of such voluntary sector communities by saying:

“ [There] has been an explosion of bureaucracy, cost and irritation, endless upheavals and pointless reorganisations, the elbowing aside of colourful, human, informal relationships based on common sense and trust in favour of the grey mechanical, joyless mantras of the master planner with his calculations, projections and impact assessments.” 24

The kind of malaise that Mr Cameron describes in the speech above is not too far away from what can be described here in Sutton. There are strong cultural barriers to embracing the invaluable role that the voluntary sector undoubtedly has to play in the provision of youth services. The barriers can be described as health and safety based, a grand sense that in-house solutions are the best, and a fear factor rooted in the worry that greater trust in the voluntary sector will not work and complaints may be received. These barriers receive a buttress in the form of a distinct lack of political will from the Liberal Democrats to remove them. They are blocking what could be an excellent cultural shift towards truly effective youth provision, that can be achieved with the Council acting as a facilitator to youth services, rather than its current, confused, directionless and ineffective approach.

23. In September 2008 Judith Smith won the London Week of Peace Volunteer Award for the work she does in the community. 24. The Rt Hon. David Cameron MP to the Campaign to Protect Rural England, 12 May 2008.

Elevate is just one example of Churches and Faith Groups penetrating deep and wide into the local youth community.

89


Sutton is a Borough of Contradictions in terms of the geographical and socioeconomic health inequalities that mark our Borough. Where residents live, according to official figures from the Primary Care Trust’s Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA)25 with Merton, has a significant bearing on life expectancy, the risk of cardiovascular mortality and cancer related mortality. The Wrythe, St. Helier, Wandle Valley and Sutton Central appear to have greater health problems than other parts of the Borough like Belmont, Cheam, and Beddington South. As a key indicator, the likelihood of cardiovascular mortality, which is linked to exercise and lifestyle, differs considerably from area to area. Figure 3 shows the Ward by Ward difference in the standardised mortality ratio (SMR) for cardiovascular mortality and Figure 4 (overleaf) illustrates mortality likelihoods in the area covered by the NHS Primary

Care Trust in a map of Sutton and Merton.26

The link between obesity and cardiovascular mortality is well established. Research from the Health Survey for England 27 provided to the London Health observatory shows that South West London (including Sutton) has higher levels of its population classed as ‘obese’ than all of the other strategic health authority regions in London. It also shows that the South West area is well above the England averages, as illustrated in Figure 5.28 According to the

25. The JSNA figures are provided by the London Health Observatory (LHO) 2008. 26. JSNA, p. 24. 27. The Health Survey for England is a Department of Health annual publication focusing on national health indi-cators such as cardio-vascular disease, physical activity, and eating habits. 28. Figures available at: http://www.lho.org.uk/viewResource.aspx?id=8942

Figure 3.

Health Inequalities: A Barrier To Wellbeing

Obesity treatment takes up to 9% of the NHS budg-et. Figures show that the problem is especially acute in South West London.

90


figures, obesity in South West London spiked in the early part of this century. Sutton’s health profile states that obesity in adults is better than the England average but that obesity in children is worse. In fact, childhood obesity in Sutton is approaching the 25% worst

percentile for regional and England averages, but above that of our neighbouring authority in Merton.29 Figures show that more obese people live in our part of London than anywhere else. They also show that the likelihood of cardiovascular mortality is greater in the

29. JNSA, p. 55.

Figure 5.

Figure 4.

91


less affluent parts of our Borough. When these two facts are put together it is accurate to say that Sutton is faced with the challenge of tackling obesity and the health problems it poses. Tellingly, the lifestyle of residents has been described as ‘average’.30

If one maintains, as we do, that health is a core component in the quality of life of Sutton residents and that the health status of local people shows considerable variance from Ward to Ward, the Council should look at ways to address these geographical inequalities.

According to the cardiovascular SMR figures in Figure 4, only one Ward has the ‘least likely to die’ rating, namely Carshalton Central. Merton has seven Wards with that rating. Four Sutton Wards rate as ‘most likely to die’. Active

lifestyles and exercise can reduce the likelihood of residents in these areas to develop such health problems. Sutton Council has schemes which promote active lifestyles, but it needs to look seriously at what more it can do to tackle the geographical health inequalities in our Borough. The Mayor of London is currently putting together a Health Inequalities Strategy for London.31 Sutton Council’s political leadership should look closely at what he proposes and also take stock of the work in other London Borough Councils, like Ealing, which have produced their own localised strategies to tackle this issue.32

30. The State of Sutton: An Economic, Social and Environmental Profile of Sutton, p.8. 31. See: http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/priorities/health/health-strategy.jsp. Former Mayor Ken Livingstone began consultation on a draft strategy to tackle health inequalities. Mayor Boris Johnson has said that he will use the consultation responses to draft a Health Inequalities Strategy which will be published later on this year. 32. Evolving a Healthier Community for All: Ealing's Health Inequalities Strategy (2005-2010), London Borough of Ealing, see: http://www.ealing.gov.uk/services/council/strategies_and_policies/health_inequalities_strategy/ 33. See http://www.betterhealthcare.org.uk/

Sutton & Merton Primary Care Trust’s programme, Better Healthcare Closer To Home 33 seeks to reshape health care in the area, developing more community-based care. This is due to include a £140 million refurbishment of St Helier Hospital.

92


Sport: Low Participation, High Potential Evidence shows that parts of our Borough face greater problems with cardiovascular health issues than others. This is unsurprising given the fact that Sutton has low participation rates in regular exercise activities, yet with the forthcoming Olympics and the Mayor of London’s commitment to work with London’s authorities, a unique opportunity has presented itself to remedy this issue. Sutton, like other Boroughs, has high potential to use sport to tackle the health inequalities that have taken root.

Sport England’s ‘Active People Survey’ rates our participation rates in exercise activities as ‘low’ at ranging between 13.3% and 19.4%.35 Sport England figures also show that there has been no change in participation rates over the last few years with Sutton remaining in the bottom 25% regionally and nationally.36 Figure 6 illustrates the depressing picture of Sutton’s participation rates in the Greater London context. The wide variation in levels of participation does not paint a favourable picture for Sutton and many other outer London Boroughs like Enfield, Havering, Bexley, Waltham Forest, Hounslow and Harrow. The Mayor of London and the Commissioner for Sport, Kate Hoey, are

34. A Sporting Future for London, Mayor of London, Greater London Authority, April 2009, p.16. Image provided to the Mayor’s Office by Sport England. 35. Active People Survey 2, 2007-08, Sport England, p.2. 36. Active People Survey – London, Headline Results, December 2006.

Leisure: An Essential Part of Wellbeing

Figure 6.34

93


giving their attention to the problem of participation across London with bold steps to get more people active. In particular, the Mayor of London’s sporting strategy is firm in its commitment to tackle inequality in sporting activities, which specifically highlights those in lower socioeconomic groups.37 Mayor Johnson’s commitment to making sporting activities open to all is very welcome in the Sutton context, given our analysis of the pockets of health inequality that exist.

Sutton Council’s leadership must commit to working with the Mayor of London to use the opportunity of the forthcoming Olympics and its long-term impact on London’s sporting infrastructure to make it work for Sutton. Higher quality facilities will attract and inspire higher quality young athletes. We celebrate the efforts of Councillor Eric Howell who has lobbied the Council’s Executive Head of Leisure and Libraries for high quality facilities, specifically a hammer cage for Sutton Arena, which will upgrade the site, attracting the country’s top athletes. We need to use the facilities we have got and upgrade them if necessary.38

The previous Mayor has been unabashed in his admission that his administration only bid for the Olympics in order to plough billions of pounds in investment into London’s East End.39 We think that the Olympics should pass on benefit to all of London, not just the East End.

Sutton residents are being charged for the Olympics and the Council’s administration should lobby the Mayor’s Office and the Olympics Minister for an equitable share of the benefits. The benefits are, of course, more than financial and we hope that Sutton Council will grasp this great opportunity to address the health inequalities that scare our Borough. The Mayor’s strategy also pledges support to ‘local initiatives and innovative approaches’. The build-up to the Olympics is set to generate considerable publicity as well as heightened public awareness of sport and the issues that surround it. Sport England has established an ‘innovation fund’ to identify and pilot new ideas in what it calls ‘community sport’.40 The Mayor of London has made £15.5million available over the next three years for small grass roots initiatives to increase participation in sport locally. The submission of ideas to the Sport England innovation fund closed on 10 August 2009. Sutton did not submit any ideas for the latest round for the innovation fund.41 We argue that this shows a dearth of ambition from the leadership of the Council in trying to obtain funding for fresh ideas in promoting community sport.

We hope that the political leadership of Sutton Council will not be so short-sighted as to fail to work with the Mayor

37. Ibid, p. 22. 38. The Hammer Cage in question has been bid for and will cost £20,000. 39. The Evening Standard, 24 May 2008. 40. See Sport England: http://www.sportengland.org/funding/innovation_fund.aspx 41. Note in 2004 Sutton Council did submit an application for funding to Sport England for a scheme with the same name for ‘Active Pathways Funding’ to help to promote community sports groups for the new Phoenix Centre, on the Roundshaw Estate.

94


of London to access funds for grass roots increased participation in sports and physical activities. We have local sporting assets in our schools. Earlier we mentioned Nonsuch High School for Girls and their partnership with the David Lloyd Sports and Leisure Centre situated on their grounds. St. Philomena’s Catholic School for Girls is well furnished with its tennis courts and swimming facilities. Wilson’s School has large playing fields. All of these facilities represent strong locally based sporting assets. The Council should examine whether it can increase its partnership with schools to increase their participation in the grass roots promotion of sporting activities. The Mayor of London’s commitment to sport as a leisure activity, backed up by millions of pounds in investment, does not appear to have been replicated locally in Sutton. There has been an array of mixed messages from the Council on the future of Cheam Leisure Centre in Malden Road, North Cheam. Despite repeated promises that Cheam Baths’ future is safe, the Liberal Democrat administration will not remove it from a list of sites allocated for future development.42 The areas surrounding Cheam Baths do not have easy walking distance access to leisure facilities other than the Centre. Cheam Baths is in a state of disrepair due to years of underfunding. The facilities at the Centre need updating but it does not have to be knocked down and built elsewhere, as the leadership of Sutton Council seem to favour, by keeping the site on the disposal list for development and moving the centre elsewhere.

A replacement for Cheam Baths does not have to be a groundbreaking, cutting edge, or innovative leisure centre. It needs to be functional and to provide the facilities which local people want and need in terms of equitable distribution of leisure services.

Heritage and Libraries Protecting Our Heritage Sutton is fortunate to have its historical assets and as our chapter on Broad Aims, Narrow Delivery outlined, the Council’s political leadership could and should do more to protect our historic and important buildings. We have set out our support for the use of Conservation Areas to stand up against the menace of overdevelopment and urban sprawl. In turn we have also criticised the relative weakness of Special Policy Areas and have argued for a more extensive use of ‘Local Listing’ for individual noteworthy buildings. This will place a specific onus on the building’s owner to protect its valuable influence on the local streetscene. We argue that small protective steps like this all add up to provide a flexible and truly localised protection of our local heritage. The Council tends to concentrate on Whitehall, Nonsuch Mansion and Little Holland House. These are core parts of our local heritage but other heritage assets are at risk. English Heritage has the following local buildings/structures on its ‘at risk’ register; the Lych Gate at the entrance to the West Churchyard at St. Mary’s Church in Beddington, the

42. ‘Site Development Policies, Preferred Options Document For Public Consultation’ Option A3, Sutton Council, p.2.

95


Orangery Wall at Beddington Place, and the Grotto at Carshalton Park.43 Additionally, the Old Rectory/Ecology Centre is falling into a state of disrepair. The Council needs to turn its attention towards our Borough’s heritage sites which need a helping hand from the local authority. Sutton’s historical buildings do not necessarily have to be the sole domain of the Council. Community voluntary groups have a valuable role to play. For example, The Grove in Carshalton is used by the Council’s Education Department for their offices. Is this the best use for such a valuable asset, including the well kept, picturesque grounds that surround it? Would it not be better in the hands of a community group, open to the public or at least lived in? The Council’s leadership should be more creative with its use of such assets and make them work for the community.

Libraries: In The Shadow of The Sutton Life Centre? The library in the Civic Offices is a great resource for Sutton residents. Placed in the centre of Sutton it boasts the highest visitor numbers of all libraries in Sutton, with the most books, computer services and study space for residents and visitors. Figure 7 shows the visitor and book issue numbers for all Sutton Council’s library services. The Central Library in Sutton has almost double the number of visitors to its nearest competitor in Wallington, in both visitor numbers and books issues. The Phoenix Centre on the Roundshaw Estate, Beddington, follows with third highest visitor numbers but the fourth smallest number of books issued. This is most likely because it is also a leisure centre. It should be noted that the Ridge Road library in Stonecot is to be scrapped with its library function replaced by a smaller facility in the Sutton Life Centre. The trend appears to be towards fewer large libraries and for much smaller ones

43. Heritage Counts 2008, English Heritage, London Data Document, p.10.

Borough Library Usage Statistics (April 08 to March 09)

0

100000

200000

300000

400000

500000

600000

Sutton

Wallin

gton

Cheam

Carsh

alton

Worce

ster P

ark

Ridge Road

Middleton C

ircle

Phoenix

(Roundsh

aw)

Beddington

Mobile

Bo

oks

Iss

ued

Issues

Visitors

Figure 7.

96


attached to other centres like the Phoenix Centre and the Sutton Life Centre. What does the future hold for smaller libraries in places such as Carshalton, Cheam and Worcester Park after the Sutton Life Centre opens?

The Sutton Life Centre has been criticised for having a highly optimistic business plan at best, and an unrealistic one at worse. For example, based on the business plan’s figures, the visitor figures for the ‘Citizenship and Life Centre/Zone’ - on the Council’s projected 40,000 visitors per year figure - will generate an income of approximately £360,000.44 This section of the Sutton Life Centre has been described as its main income generator. Staffing costs are detailed at £394,000 for the first full year of operation45 leaving a shortfall of £34,000 on staffing costs alone. The Life Centre Business Plan needs to penetrate 59% of the market it has set itself in order to meet its financial and visitor targets.46 The business case for the Sutton Life Centre has clear flaws. The Council leadership obviously has an inclination towards large scale and expensive projects at the potential expense of smaller scale more traditional services like community library services.

Given that the libraries budget for Sutton Council accounts for approximately 1.5% of overall spends and the Life Centre is costing £8.5million to build, even though it is uncertain whether it can turn a profit, it is difficult not to see a budgetary cloud moving over our Borough’s libraries. 44. Business Plan for the Sutton Life Centre, p.24. 45. Ibid. p.41. 46. It aims for 40,000 visitors from School Years 6 (age 10) and 8 (age 12) in a catchment area with population of roughly 67,723 pupils. This is a 59.06% penetration of the market, far exceeding the aspirations of organisations like Starbucks and Tesco.

Conclusions Sutton is a Borough of Contradictions in its provision of youth services because although there is an untapped wealth of experience and commitment in the voluntary sector waiting to be utilised, cultural barriers within the Council are blocking its use. Instead the Council seems fixated on providing in-house replication of PSHE-style guidance to teenagers and young people rather than the character-building contact with adults that is required. The benefits of such schemes are demonstrated in reductions in crime and antisocial behaviour. Other benefits are that young people have safe environments without the temptation of falling into antisocial behaviour, drugs and violence.

The fact is, boredom is a major cause of crime and antisocial behaviour in young people, and while that is never an excuse for breaking the law and seriously disrupting the lives of decent ordinary residents, it is a simple truth. The Council leadership is more excited about looking

[The Council] seems fixated on providing

in-house replication of PSHE-style guidance to

teenagers and young people rather than the character-

building contact with adults that is required.

97


busy with expensive pet projects like the Sutton Life Centre. While undoubtedly well-intentioned and the product of hard work from many council employees, it simply will not provide the long-term forming of trusting relationships with adults that characterises effective youth provision. A multimedia experience, a climbing wall and virtual reality drug-dealers will not teach real-life skills like coping with family breakdown, exam related stress or peer pressure to join gangs.

However, strong role models in structured yet relaxed safe environments can, and this is where our voluntary sector comes in. Voluntary sector youth organisations know what needs to be done and how to do it and on shoestring budgets; all they need is for the Council to become a supportive facilitator. Regrettably, it will take £8.5million of taxpayers’ money to be spent before the Liberal Democrat leadership of Sutton Council understands this, if ever they do. Health inequalities are a deep worry in the Borough with life expectancies and the probability of dying from cardiovascular problems varying from Ward to Ward. The poorer areas of our Borough have worse health according to official statistics. We believe that these

health inequalities can be tackled through a positive emphasis on exercise, sport and physical activity. Mayor Boris Johnson, in preparation for the 2012 Olympics, is giving ever greater support to grass roots community sports schemes. We welcome his commitment to addressing health inequalities and his enthusiasm for sport-related solutions. To underline this commitment Mayor Johnson has put his money where his mouth is by pledging £15.5million. His promise to work with local authorities, national bodies and the private sector in investing in small, community, park or estate-based projects is a step in the right direction. Sutton’s political leadership needs to bite the bullet and have the initiative to work with the Mayor and to engage with City Hall to bring these benefits to Sutton. After all, that is why Sutton residents pay the mayoral precept on their council tax.

Ineffective youth provision, health inequalities and uncertain leisure services embody some of our Borough’s numerous contradictions but they are areas bursting with potential. We hope that this potential can be unlocked.

The Council leadership is more excited about looking

busy with expensive pet projects like the Life

Centre.

Voluntary sector youth organisations know what needs to be done and how to do it and on shoestring

budgets; all they need is for the Council to become a

supportive facilitator.

98


99

The State of Sutton: A Borough of Contradictions Transport, Planning and the Environment: Broad Aims, Narrow Delivery

Transport, Planning and the Environment: Broad Aims, Narrow Delivery

100


Introduction Transport: The Road To Sustainable Transport Studies show that transport is a big issue for Sutton residents, with many saying that it should feature very highly as a priority for the Council. A significant number of people have even said that transport is a key indicator of how our area is getting worse. Sutton Council’s Liberal Democrat political leadership has a cultural predisposition towards ‘hard options’ in transport policy, especially in traffic calming and the behavioural change agenda to reduce car use. Such punitive measures include unpopular road humps, drastic cuts in residents’ visitors’ free parking hours, and the over enthusiastic use of double yellow lines. The heavy-handed ‘stick approach’ is in contrast to other measures known as ‘soft travel demand management’ or ‘soft options’, which we will refer to as the ‘carrot approach’ in the Sutton context. A cultural change favouring soft options is under way in Transport for London (TfL) following the election of Boris Johnson in May 2008. It seems that here in Sutton the Council’s political leadership is yet to follow this example. The contradiction here is that Sutton is out of kilter with the progressive policy shift in transport in Greater London. One notable exception to the above is the cross-party initiative between Sutton Council and TfL called Smarter Travel

Sutton.1 In September 2006, Sutton received £5million of funding from TfL for this project for a three year period. This ‘sustainable travel town’ partnership with TfL is designed to reduce car trips and to promote sustainable transport by encouraging, not forcing, behavioural change. Smarter Travel Sutton’s efforts have won it an award at the Municipal Journal Awards 2009.2 Sutton’s political leadership have discovered an enthusiasm for ‘soft options’, only when attached to such a large amount of funding.

Sutton needs a solid commitment to working with residents via soft options to reduce car use rather than against them with hard options and, importantly, not just when there is money on the table. The Council’s political leadership is enthusiastic in its bidding for TfL funding for projects and travel plans, but it does not seem to be capable of doing things for itself. We contend that this demonstrates a lack of vision. The contradiction we highlight here is that Sutton will opt for soft options but only when there is cash involved. Its commitment to soft options is merely skin deep. At heart, its ideology favours hard options and punitive measures to change behaviour. In terms of public transport the Borough is well serviced in parts, but less so in others. There is a geographical inequality in public transport accessibility. Sutton town centre enjoys the highest levels of accessibility, followed by Wallington and Rosehill. Carshalton and the remaining

1. See: www.smartertravelsutton.org 2. MJ Awards 2009, 25 June 2009, see: http://www.localgov.co.uk/index.cfm?method=awards.copy&id=74004

101


district areas have to contend with low accessibility. Areas like South Beddington and Carshalton South and Clockhouse have relatively low public transport accessibility.3 The Borough, as a whole, does benefit from a good network of buses serving key destinations. It is also served by ten railway stations with two just outside the Borough’s boundaries (St. Helier and Mitcham Junction). Sutton’s railway services provide links to prominent London stations like Victoria, Waterloo and London Bridge. Sutton Council will need to look hard at why some areas are less well serviced than others for public transport. As a Borough, Sutton has good accessibility to public transport but some areas have unequal access to such services. In this sense, as in others, Sutton is a Borough of Contradictions.

Congestion is a big problem in Sutton. Key pinch points include London Road in Hackbridge, Central Road in Worcester Park, Sandy Lane in Cheam, Wallington High Street and the crossroads at The Broadway in Cheam village. Government figures show that traffic levels have increased over the last decade. In terms of traffic volumes, Sutton appears to be close to the previous Mayor’s London targets.4 But this has little or no relevance to the average Sutton resident who relies on their car for daily travel. Recent statistics show that car use accounts for 58% of residents’ mode of travel.5

While it is encouraging that 42% of residents travelled by means other than a car the Council does need to be practical and honest in accepting that car use is the mode of travel for the majority of residents. Traffic is a problem and easing congestion has an environmental imperative as well as a transport one. The most effective method of reducing congestion is reduced car use. But the Council must accept that it cannot simply browbeat and cajole residents out of their cars – it should look into easing traffic flow as well.

The benefits of smoother moving traffic are clear: commuters benefit, emissions are reduced, and bus travel becomes more reliable, which in turn can encourage a modal shift.6

3. See Public Transport Accessibility Level (PTAL) methodology devised by the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. PTAL is used by the Greater London Authority and TfL and is regarded as the standard method to assess public transport accessibility. 4. As measured by million vehicle-kms, as the measurement used by the Department for Transport (DfT). Source: National Road Traffic Survey, see: www.dft-matrix.net. 5. London Travel Demand Survey 2008. 6. This is the approach at the heart of Boris Johnson’s winning transport manifesto, entitled Getting Londoners Moving.

It took severe weather conditions in 2009 to restore Carshalton Ponds to a traffic-free reminder of a bygone era

102


Planning: Squandering Our Environmental Inheritance Planning is one of the most contentious policy areas in local government. Planning decisions and policies shape our physical environment. Local character in our neighbourhoods is shaped by physicality and, as a natural consequence, so are local people. Sutton is a collection of villages and at the very outset of this chapter we reaffirm a steadfast commitment to protecting our suburban environment. Our natural assets must not be squandered. But this question immediately poses itself: is Sutton Council’s political leadership actually achieving this? We contend that they are not. The Liberal Democrat administration has presided over two decades of overdevelopment and its impact on the Borough’s suburban environment is for all to see. Here is a core contradiction: the Council’s leadership purports, with typical grandiosity, to protect our suburban realm, stating their policies are designed to shape: “An attractive and distinctive suburban Borough, offering a high quality residential environment, well designed buildings, ‘liveable’ streets and public spaces…” 7 But the changing face of our Borough’s physical environment indicates a lack of political will to protect it. This administration has spent two decades presiding over reckless, community-damaging overdevelopment which is allowing our villages to lose their 7. Core Planning Strategy: Proposed Submission, under the theme ‘Improving the Streetscene and Living Environment’, Sutton Council, November 2008. 8. The Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act [1990].

character. As a result our Borough risks being transformed into an increasingly soulless urbanised dormitory town for London. We must, therefore, fight the tide of overdevelopment. The Housing, Planning and Transport Policy Group has criticised the Council in its planning policy for lacking truly joined-up thinking when it comes to the relationship between decent and appropriate planning, especially in terms of economic development of the Borough. Sutton, unlike our Croydon and Kingston neighbours, lacks a Unique Selling Point (USP). This has come about after a two decade long starvation of any vision for Sutton from the Council’s political leadership. It has missed the fundamentals. The ‘gateways’ to the Borough paint a terrible picture. Victoria House in North Cheam on the junction of Cheam Common Road, London Road and Malden Road and Sutherland House in South Sutton on the Brighton Road create an instant impression of urban decay and neglect. When people use these major gateways to our Borough, the first thing they see must not be monuments to decline. In protecting our suburban realm, Sutton Council has statutory powers as well as duties.8 In order of the level of protection afforded, the Borough has: 14 Conservation Areas (CAs), 15 Areas of Special Local Character (ASLCs), and three Special Policy Areas (SPA).

103


The Council needs to be more proactive in delivering truly localised protection of our villages through greater use of such protective planning measures.

Notwithstanding narrow financial implications, it also needs to be more robust in defending our suburban physical environment. The Council needs fire in its belly and a willingness to fight its corner in Whitehall, standing up to developers and their bulldozers. This can only be achieved through tougher political leadership with a strategic, rather than tactical, vision for Sutton and all its villages and district centres. The Environment: Broad Aims, Narrow Delivery Sutton Council’s political leadership makes much out of its green credentials, often evoking green initiatives from the past, from recycling through to climate change. The environmental monikers of Sutton as a ‘Green Council’ is oft-cited by the political administration in self-praise, frequently harking back to by-gone glory days. Its aims are broad and its rhetoric is grandiose, but now its delivery is narrow. The administration is running out of steam. We cite this as a contradiction. Minimising waste is a core part of the environmental agenda. The Council was an early participant in the recycling agenda and this is welcome, but it seems that residents took this opportunity to recycle in order to reduce household waste - and have continued to do so - despite the political leadership of the Council, not because of it. There have

been serious instances where the Council has opted to work against residents, which has damaged its reputation. Abuses of trust, like the Green Garden Waste Disaster, whereby the Council’s environmental chief chose to work against residents rather than with them, proved catastrophic. As a matter of huge importance to the future of our Borough, the goodwill of the public to the environmental and waste minimisation agenda cannot be jeopardised through grave errors like the Green Garden Waste Disaster. This is particularly the case when a third of Sutton residents cite the environment as a reason why their area has got worse.9 Additionally, Sutton residents demonstrate a high level of awareness on environmental issues. For example, the majority of Sutton residents are worried about the amount of household waste that is produced.10 Residents are right to be concerned because European Directives on reducing reliance on landfill sites to dispose of waste are placing huge pressures on local authorities up and down the United Kingdom. Sutton is no different. As of April 2009, the cost of sending waste to landfill is £40 per tonne, which is estimated to have a per household cost of £30.11 Over two thirds of Sutton’s waste is sent to landfill and at a cost of £40 per tonne existing habits are simply unsustainable. National performance indicators showing Sutton Council’s performance for waste management and recycling do not match

9. Ipsos MORI, Sutton Residents Survey, February 2008, p.28. 10. Ibid, p. 73. 11. BBC News, ‘Landfill tax costing homes £30’, Wednesday 18 March 2009.

104


its green image. It ranks 213th out of 394 local authorities across English councils on its overall performance in waste collection and recycling rates.12 Again, we argue that Sutton is a Borough of Contradictions in this area because the Liberal Democrat leadership celebrates and self-congratulates their green credentials but in reality the facts do not match the rhetoric. Sutton has many natural assets, including a variety of green open spaces and some of the highest tree populations in London. Sutton has over 190,000 trees, which works out at over one tree per resident.13 The benefits of our trees are manifold, be they in back gardens, lining roads and streets or in our parks and open spaces, providing a green barrier to CO2 emissions and a cushion against urbanisation. Over the past two calendar years the Council has cut down more trees than it has planted. In the two-year period 2004-2006, the Council replanted a mere 19.5% of the trees it had cut down.14 Tree replenishment numbers have improved in the last calendar year but the Council must invest more in tree planting. Preserving our suburban environment will be the next generation’s environmental inheritance arising from the decisions that we take now. Another aspect of our Borough’s environmental wealth is that of Sutton’s residents. The people of Sutton care about their environment and want to make a difference. A small minority fail to

accept this responsibility through antisocial behaviours such as littering, graffiti and fly-tipping, but the vast majority are responsible and want to see our natural environmental endowments protected and maximised. Conservatives, locally and nationally, understand this and want to make it even easier for residents to do the right thing. Innovations in Conservative policy reflect this. We reaffirm our endorsement to the principle of helping people to do the right thing for the environment, not browbeating them and forcing them to do what the Council’s political leadership wants. Because we know Sutton’s residents want to do the right thing, we would like to see the Council trust local people more. Elsewhere in this report we have discussed the implications of a ‘Post-Bureaucratic Age’; the notion that local government is not always the wellspring of solutions to local issues and that often the community, through bottom-up initiatives, are best placed to tackle problems. We posit the view that the Council should look closer at community-led environmental action by really trusting people and empowering communities to act in real partnership on recycling, waste minimisation and environmental protection.

12. Figures from the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra), November 2008. 13. See: http://www.sutton.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=3967. 14. Figures from a report presented to the Scrutiny Co-ordinating Committee regarding the number of trees, 2006.

105


The Well Meaning Vision Sutton Council’s current vision on transport according to its Promoting sustainable Transport and Accessibility theme is thus: -

“A well-connected suburban Borough, with good access for all to local employment, social and community facilities and open space by public transport, walking or cycling, reducing overall travel needs, car dependence, traffic growth and congestion, local pollution and carbon dioxide emissions and improving health and well-being.” 15

The Reality: Understanding Car Dependence To Tackle Congestion ‘Reducing car dependence’ is the strategic objective which the Council has

derived from the above vision statement. It is right for the Council to aspire to greater use of public transport because this will decrease the negative impacts of congestion in Sutton. Transport is second only to crime and the need for more activities for teenagers as an issue of importance to residents, with 41% of surveyed residents wanting to see activity to tackle congestion on our roads (Figure 1).17 But the Council needs to do more research on whether residents actually see reducing congestion as necessarily linked to reduced car use. We know that car use is on the rise in Sutton and that our Borough roughly corresponds with the previous Mayor of London’s target traffic volumes for Sutton (shown overleaf in Figure 2 as ‘Linear Trajectory’).

Figure 1.16

15. Sutton Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) Section 11: Transport, p.153. 16. Place Survey 2008/09, London Borough of Sutton, Ipsos MORI, p.29. 17. Ibid, pp. 10, 28-29.

Transport In Sutton: Policy and Reality

106


Public Transport Accessibility Car use is the obvious choice for residents when public transport is not easily accessible. This opinion is not wasted on the current Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, who also serves as Chairman of the TfL Board.

The Mayor understands that after eight years of a Labour Mayoralty, Outer London Boroughs like Sutton were almost always at the back of the queue for transport investment and increased services and so for a chunk of the population there is no ready alternative to the car for many short journeys.

18. DfT figures, National Road Traffic Survey.

This is a question of basic accessibility to public transport services. Figure 3 shows that some parts of Sutton are clearly impoverished in public transport accessibility compared to other district centres which are remarkably well serviced. Large parts of South Beddington, Carshalton Beeches and Carshalton on the Hill, parts of Belmont and Cheam range between Levels 1a and 1b on range of accessibility. The rating for 1b is ‘extremely poor access to the location by public transport’ and 6a as ‘excellent access by public transport.’ There are additional pockets with inadequate public transport accessibility in places like Stonecot Hill, Benhilton and Worcester Park. The Borough’s Local Implementation Plan (LIP) does give attention to the issue of accessibility and ‘inclusion’ to transport networks. Target data is yet to be released. Concerns have been raised about the flexibility of the LIP on the grounds of its bureaucratic process. Members of the Housing, Planning and Transport Policy Group have highlighted that it is inflexible and of limited use in dealing with transport issues as they arise because of the long lead-time.

Figure 2.18

Boris Johnson. Mayor of London 2008-present.

107


Changes in transport are often too quick for the Council. Accessibility objectives from the Mayor’s Transport Strategy, contained in the LIP, can often be very slow to put into practice at ground level. The Council should consider how it can respond quicker and adapt faster. Interestingly, the Liberal Democrats’ manifesto for the May 2006 local elections is silent on reducing car use and on public transport accessibility. It fails to outline any aspiration to reduce car use in connection with emissions, apart from a very lightweight reference to the ‘principle of car-free areas in the borough’.20 This is notable considering the perennial self-aggrandisement associated with the green credentials of the Council’s political leadership.21

If Sutton Council is to reduce car dependency it needs to have a vision for improving the Borough’s public transport network, in particular pushing for greater equality of access across Sutton.

Fresh thinking rather than lip-service is required to reduce congestion. As well as a saleable vision which residents can sign up to, the council needs to stop posturing and feigning action and use the local government structures in London to achieve a better result for residents. Too often the Liberal Democrats – at all levels – have played politics with transport issues and this has hindered improvements in the accessibility of services for residents.

19.. AMR submission, p.193. 20. Liberal Democrat Manifesto, May 2006, p.8 21. This theme will be explored further in this chapter under: Broad Aims, Narrow Delivery.

Figure 3.19

108


Case Study One: Sunday Bus Service, Route 463 The Clockhouse area sits at the southern extremity of the Borough near Coulsdon. As demonstrated in Figure 3, it has poor access to public transport facilities and features with a 1b ‘poor accessibility’ rating. This dearth of public transport was made worse by the absence of a decent Sunday bus service.

Rather than playing politics with the issue, Conservative councillors in the Carshalton South and Clockhouse Ward, worked with Steve O’Connell AM22 together with local residents’ groups to see a new service was established. The Sunday service starts at 6.28am and ends at 11.25pm, running every half hour to provide Clockhouse residents at The Mount bus stop with a vital transport link which they previously lacked.

Case Study Two: Sutton To Croydon N213 Night Bus The cancellation of the Sutton to Croydon N213 night bus caused considerable controversy among residents,23 particularly young people, who used the service. Local Liberal Democrats, including the Member of Parliament for Carshalton and Wallington, proceeded to turn it into a campaign, equipped with a Facebook campaign, placards proclaiming ‘It’s Time To Listen Boris!’ and a protest in Wallington. During a session of ‘Questions from Members of the Public’ to Executive Councillors, Councillor Tim Crowley24 asked the Liberal Democrat Executive Member for Transport “What direct contacts have you had with the Mayor, may I ask, over this issue?” Councillor Colin Hall’s answer was as follows: “None…I have not spoken to the Mayor.”25

A period of nearly three weeks had lapsed since the cancellation of the N213 service. During that period neither the Liberal Democrat MP for the area or his colleague on the Council responsible for transport had taken the initiative to contact the Mayor of London. In the end, it took a 22 year old student to speak to Boris Johnson directly. Mayor Johnson gave his instant support to reinstate the service.26

22. Councillor Steve O’Connell is Croydon and Sutton’s Conservative London Assembly Member. 23. Sutton Guardian, 9 July 2009. 24. Formerly Opposition Spokesman for Transport, currently Finance and Value for Money Spokesman. 25. Meeting of the Full Council, Monday 20 July 2009. Appendix A to Council Minutes, Questions from Members of the Public. 26. Sutton Guardian, Friday 24 July 2009.

(Pictured left to right) Carshalton South & Clockhouse councillors, John Kennedy, Tim Crowley and Moira Butt

109


Case Study Conclusions Our two case studies illustrate the differing approaches in improving accessibility to public transport in Sutton. One approach favours direct and effective action to eliminate the starvation of transport links to a part of the Borough which, by the standards of both the GLA and TfL, receives a poor service. The other shows grandiose and cynical manipulation of the issue and basic failure to even directly contact the Mayor of London to address the issue, instead opting for political opportunism. These differing approaches to addressing accessibility inequalities stand in stark contrast to each other and represent yet another aspect of our Borough of Contradictions.

The Road To Sustainable Transport: Carrot Rather Than Stick The Sleeping Policeman: Valuable Tool or Inverted Pothole? The introduction to this report outlined Sutton Council’s skin deep commitment to the use of soft options, favouring hard options to achieve reduced car reliance/usage. The Council has a history of using punitive road humps, aka the sleeping policeman, as a traffic calming measure on the Borough’s roads and a less than enviable track record of being in touch with residents as to their use, location and effectiveness.

That is not to say that road humps do not have their place in the traffic calming armoury for local authorities. However Sutton Council’s political leadership appears to be so enthusiastically wed to the use of this hard option, and to such a large extent, that it has earned the ire of many residents and motorists alike. Sutton has implemented a range of accident reduction measures including road safety campaigns and long-term programmes for area specific traffic calming in high accident locations, for example the STEPS Zone programme.27 In terms of road performance the Council’s highways department has achieved an average 36.8% reduction in the number of people (including pedestrians, children, cyclists and motorcyclists) being killed or seriously injured on our roads in comparison to 1994-1998 averages. A breakdown of Sutton’s road safety performance 2007-8 can be seen below in Figure 4. It is extremely welcome to see reductions in the rates of mortality and serious injury on our roads. Although injuries to pedestrians do not appear to have dropped as much as other areas. We need to commission research into effectiveness of roads humps in these percentage reductions.28 If the primary reason for installing road humps is reducing speed in order to prevent road accidents resulting in the death or serious injury of road users and pedestrians, and no clear correlation can be established between the use of humps and road safety, the Council will need to seriously re-evaluate their use.

27. Strategic Traffic and Environmental Problems Study (STEPS) 28. An April 2004 London Assembly report entitled ‘London gets the hump’ from the Transport Committee, chaired by Liberal Democrat Assembly Member Lynne Featherstone, was pointed in its defence of road humps.

110


We believe that road humps have their place – especially when asked for by residents - but that humps are not the universal be all and end all for traffic calming. Punitive measures like road humps should not be used lightly. Road humps have considerable drawbacks as well as some identifiable merits. They can damage vehicles. Smaller and more environmentally friendly vehicles suffer the most. Humps can also cause noise disruption in residential areas. The Housing, Planning and Transport Policy Group has heard accounts of how commercial vehicles, particularly lorries carrying heavy goods like scaffolding, hit the humps at considerable speed resulting in noise pollution to intolerable extents. Many commercial vehicles of this type travel early in the day - thus disturbing residents’ sleep. Some residents have even reported walls vibrating and windows rattling as a result of heavy commercial vehicles going over road humps.

This can damage buildings, with old constructions suffering in particular. Another perverse consequence of extensive road hump use is that it may encourage motorists to purchase larger more powerful vehicles, thus creating greater emissions, because the impact of the humps is reduced with such motor vehicles. It may even be the case that road humps discourage motorists from using more eco-friendly cars and that humps adversely affect attempts to reduce vehicle emissions. For a purportedly green political leadership in Sutton Council this seems counter-intuitive, especially with the cost of road humps varying from £1,200 to £2,000 each - if not much more.30 Research carried out by the London Ambulance Service (LAS) has attributed the presence of road humps in Greater London to costing 500 lives because the humps slow down emergency service vehicles.31 The DfT accepted the findings of this research in its response to LAS, stating that before road humps are introduced “full consideration should be given to the wider implications of

29. Source: Sutton Council and TfL 2008, see AMR 2007-2008. 30. Figures provided by the Campaign for Better Transport, www.bettertransport.org.uk 31. Road-hump delays 'kill hundreds of ambulance patients' each year', The Independent, 20 September 2003.

Figure 4.29

111


32. Ibid. 33. BBC News, Wednesday 3 December 2003, see: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3288795.stm 34. London gets the hump, chairman’s foreword. 35. BBC News, Thursday 19 June 2003, see: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3003788.stm 36. Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health, Wealth, and Happiness, Yale University Press, May 2008.

introducing traffic-calming measures on our roads. This is particularly important with regards to response times for the emergency services.”32 The Metropolitan Police echoed the concerns of the Ambulance Service.33 The conclusions of the London Ambulance Service were criticised by the then Liberal Democrat chairman of the Transport Committee on the London Assembly, who described the research as contributing to the “fever pitch” regarding road humps.34

Conservative controlled Barnet Council has pursued a no-nonsense attitude to hard measures like road humps, with much public support.35

In light of the ongoing debate surrounding road humps, an incoming political administration in Sutton Council should seriously look at the effectiveness of its established policy of reliance on humps in the Borough’s transport infrastructure. The path to sustainable transport options is not based on a cultural dependence on punitive methods of traffic calming and the behavioural change that intends to reduce car dependence. Instead the Council should look closer at softer ‘carrot’ methods to tackle transport problems. This is where ‘nudging’ comes in. Nudging The Sleeping Policeman? A recent theory has taken the political world – Left Wing, Right Wing or Centrist - by storm. ‘Nudge Theory’ was devised by the economist and behavioural science theorist Dr Richard Thaler and the academic lawyer Professor Cass Sunstein.36 In short, the theory maintains that it is better and more productive to attempt to foster positive change by giving the choice of good/desirable behaviour (nudging the subject in the preferred direction) rather than by punitive sanctions against the bad/undesirable behaviour. Application of the theory would see local authorities promoting preferred travel options while still leaving the individual the choice to take the undesirable route. Smarter Travel Sutton, for example, promoted the use of different modal

Councillor Paul Scully illustrating the absurdity of a road hump sited in a Beddington cul-de-sac 125 feet in length, leading to an allotment. A case of catching speeding wheelbarrows?

112


options in transport to meet its targets for car travel reduction. This kind of approach has been endorsed by David Cameron,37 as well as finding support among Sutton Council’s senior officers with the Strategic Director of Environment and Leisure, Daniel Ratchford,38 signalling his support for the nudge school of thought in a prominent local government publication. Mr Ratchford described the Council’s approach as:

“The difference in Sutton is that we believe in encouraging people to take responsibility and, where appropriate, change their behaviour, rather than looking for the council to cure all social ills. “We don’t do things for people, we do things with people.”39

The goals and the approach of nudge theorists are desirable in that they avoid the heavy-handed application of punitive measures in favour of softer ones, imbued with an emphasis on working with not against residents. The application of this approach is more welcome than Sutton’s previous cultural inclination towards hard travel options, often implemented without much regard to residents’ wishes.

Transport has been an area in which the political leadership of the Council has condoned hard options which seemingly contradict the policy ethos of nudge theory as described by Mr Ratchford.

Picking up on the point about Sutton doing things ‘with’ people, we shall examine two case studies which show the Council’s political leadership very much doing things ‘to’ people.

37. Nudge theory back in fashion with the Tories, The Guardian, 24 March 2009. 38. Mr Ratchford is a keen proponent of cycle use, and travels between council offices on a fold-up Brompton bike, see: Sutton Council Press Release, Sutton staff lead the smarter travel revolution, 17 August 2009. 39. We’re all in this together, Municipal Journal, 12 August 2009, see: http://www.localgov.co.uk/index.cfm?method=news.detail&id=81195&layout=2

‘Nudge Theory’ creators, Dr Richard Thaler and Professor Cass Sunstein propose a system of ‘libertarian paternalism’, with ‘choice architects’ seeking to influence choice whilst making it easy for people who want to exercise their freedom to go their own way.

113

War Against Residents - Case Studies Case Study One: 75% Reduction In CPZ Visitor Hours Summer 2008 saw drastic cuts to residents’ free parking hours within the Belmont and South Sutton Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs). Residents were originally allocated 200 free parking hours for their visitors. This was cut to 100 hours, and then – most controversially of all – reduced by a further 50% to only 50 free hours in June 2008. This represented a 75% reduction in the space of eighteen months.40

CPZ residents were then entitled to purchase limited blocks of hours back from Sutton Council. The consultation efforts of the Council were subject to heavy criticism with the vast majority of residents totally oblivious to the changes until the efforts of Opposition Conservative Councillors raised awareness of the punishing reduction in free hours.

CPZs: Parking control or cash cow?

One resident described the Council’s consultation on the reduction of free hours as “almost impossible to find” and that “the public had no reasonable way to communicate their displeasure” to the Council.41 The Liberal Democrat Executive Member for Transport defended the cuts by saying that Sutton provided more free hours, comparatively, than other Boroughs and to emphasise that the Council had abided by statutory consultation. In reality the consultation efforts were poor, consisting of a public notice on an obscure part of the sutton.gov.uk website and a notice in one of the Borough’s lesser read newspapers. It took place over the busy Christmas and New Year period and garnered 22 responses – a tiny fraction of affected residents. This case study shows a poor commitment to proper consultation with residents. The Council did not work ‘with’ residents in reducing CPZ residents’ visitors’ parking hours – it simply did it ‘to’ residents and without their consent.

This kind of approach was endorsed by the Council’s political leadership in the open forum of Sutton’s highest decision making body, the Full Council, in full view of the public and without remorse. It marks a stark contradiction to the ethos of nudge theory and a true commitment to softer transport demand measures.

40. Rip-off Sutton Council As Free Parking Hours Are Slashed, Conservative Group Press Release, 30 May 2008. 41. Meeting of the Full Council, 21 July 2008, Appendix A to the Minutes, Questions from Members of the Public.


114


Summer 2008 was home to another key example of how Sutton’s Liberal Democrats’ transport policy actively favours hard punitive options. Proposals were devised to charge motorists in the Sutton and Belmont Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) according to their Vehicle Excise Duty Band (VED). The proposals were modelled on an identical scheme in the Liberal Democrat-run London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames which linked parking permit charges to engine size. Bizarrely, this scheme did not take mileage into account.42 Consequently, an unused vehicle with a high VED rating would end up paying 200% more for parking permits, while a middle-ranking VED car which may accumulate enormous amounts of mileage would pay less, despite creating greater emissions and adding to road congestion. Studies from Richmond Council itself indicated that the number of higher polluting vehicles actually increased following the implementation of their VED-linked parking permit scheme.43 Naturally, Sutton wished to follow! Consultation was a source of controversy again. Firstly, a 10% response had been achieved from the Council’s consultation with 62% of respondents favouring the proposed scheme. Conservative members

of the Scrutiny Overview Committee suggested that this was an insufficient sample of public opinion on which to implement such a scheme. Secondly, a consultation was being carried out with Carshalton residents on the establishment of a CPZ in their area. Tellingly, the consultation made no mention of the possibility of VED based permit charging, despite running concurrently with each other.

This case study provides further evidence that the political leadership of Sutton Council is an enthusiastic adherent to hard transport options. The experience from Richmond shows that punitive charging methods, designed to reduced car use through the residents’ pocket, can even have the adverse effect. Punitive methods to change travel behaviour do not necessarily achieve results.

42. From Carbon Footprint To Carbon Jackboot, Conservative Group Press Release, 18 June 2008. 43. See: Environment and Sustainability Overview and Scrutiny Committee, London Borough of Richmond-upon-Thames, Monday 9 June 2008.

Only 3.5% of Sutton’s cars would have been charged extra; an unfair burden on residents who left their cars parked during the day rather than driving them around emitting fumes.

Case Study Two: From Carbon Footprint To Carbon Jackboot

115


Committing To The Carrot This report has expressed its firm support for softer transport options wherever possible because we believe that the Council is here to serve residents rather than to browbeat and cajole residents into compliance with its aims and objectives. Working with residents is at the centre of our philosophy. While it may pay lip service to this agenda, the current political administration has demonstrated it has a different view in practice. If Sutton is to deliver sustainable transport locally, it needs to make modes of transport other than cars easier and more attractive. We have outlined the problems in transport accessibility for some parts of our Borough. Now we need to devise ways to make cycling far more attractive as a travel option than it

currently is. As stated earlier in this report, 58% of people travel by car, this is in contrast to 2% who cycle. The full modal list of transport habits in Sutton are shown below in Figure 5. Cycling finds itself second only to motorcycles and vans/lorries as the smallest minority as a mode of travel in Sutton. This is a surprising figure given the green pro-cycling ethos of Sutton’s political administration. The Council has broad and laudable aims on making Sutton a truly cycle friendly Borough but is narrow in its delivery. Paying LIP Service to cycling? The LIP submission in 2007 is right to say that we have high potential45 for becoming a cycling Borough with all the health, congestion easing and emission reducing benefits that it will bring. But the aspirations have so far been narrow in delivery.

44. Cycling Action Plan, Chapter Eleven, LIP, 2007, p.327. 45. Ibid, p.325.

Figure 5.44

Sutton's Transport Modal Share

19%

3%

10%

1%

1%

2%

6%

47%

11%

National Rail

Undergrond/DLR

Bus/Tram

Van/Lorry

Motorcycle

Cycle

Walk

Car Driver

Car Passenger

116


The benefits for Sutton and the individual in a greater take-up in cycling are clear. Figure 6 shows why the 2% of Sutton’s travelling population cycle, and their motivations for doing so. By a large majority, leisure is the primary factor followed by transport to and from school or a place of work. We need to understand why so many people do not cycle more often and then apply a nudge theory perspective on how to remove these barriers and to promote this modal shift in travel habit. Sutton’s cycling infrastructure is not that good. The inadequate state of cycle paths give the cyclist an impression of danger. Also it can form a practical barrier to those who do want to cycle and are motivated to do so. The perception of it being a hassle and an uphill struggle will put many would-be regular cyclists off. Sutton High Street is a good example of an inadequate cycle path network. Pedestrians often stray onto the cycle paths and cyclists off them, because they are poorly designed and not well defined.

46. Ibid. p.326 47. BBC London News, 18 August 2009. 48. The notion that Sutton Council does not fight its corner robustly enough in other places will be explored further on in this report.

To get more people using pedal-power, cycling needs to be easy. As it stands it is not. The Mayor of London has just announced that free cycling training will be provided through London Councils for Londoners who want to start cycling.47 Mr Johnson has authorised the scheme, to continue the net

decrease in cyclists killed or seriously injured. This is a prime example of how the Mayoralty is leading on soft options to promote alternatives to car use. Sutton Council could take a leaf out of his book. Sutton has admirable aspirations for improving cycling in the Borough as outlined in the LIP. But why does it have to wait for TfL and go through the bureaucratic process, locking itself into a three-year programme? Why does the Council simply not get on with the job? The Council is endlessly bidding for funds through projects and travel plans, and is always slavish to the source.48 The Council leadership does not seem able to think independently, creatively and proactively in delivering a cycle friendly environment. It needs to stop playing lip service to cycling and to start being proactive. The benefits are too great for Sutton Council to be dragging its feet; it needs to employ their use to pedal power instead.

Sutton Residents' Reasons for Cycling

13%

10%

61%

16%0%

Getting to and fromwork/school

Shopping

Leisure

Fitness

Racing/sports

Figure 6.46

117


Defending Our Suburban Realm The London Borough of Sutton is an artificial construct formed in 1965. It was created by the London Government Act [1963], formed from the three separate local boroughs, formerly part of the old county of Surrey. Sutton is a collection of suburban villages; each distinct with its own character, history and heritage. If you ask a resident where they live they are more than likely to say which part of the Borough, not the Borough itself. There is a genuine feel and fear that the villages and district centres are being eroded and irreparably changed through poor planning policy coupled with the menace of overdevelopment. Our villages and districts include: Beddington, Belmont, Carshalton, Cheam, Hackbridge, North Cheam, Sutton, St. Helier, Wallington and Worcester Park. Planning policy SO1649 states that it is a strategic objective of the Council to ‘safeguard the distinctive suburban character of the Borough by maintaining a diverse mix of residential areas, including Conservation Areas and Areas of Special Local Character, within local neighbourhoods’. That sounds very attractive and what the Borough needs in order to defend its areas of distinct local character. Sadly, the reality is different.

49. AMR 2007-08 p.131. 50. Figures obtained by the Conservative Parliamentary Resources Unit. Since 1997 there has been a steady upward trend in the development of residential land in the South East. In 2005 30% of new dwellings were built on land that was previously residential, up some 14% from 1997. The figure in Sutton is 41%. 51. A brownfield site is any land, previously been used for any purpose and no longer in use for that purpose. 52. Also see Figures show Sutton in real risk of urban sprawl, Conservative Group Press Release, 28 June 2007. 53. AMR 2007-08, p.138.

Creeping Urban Sprawl Sutton is at very real risk of urban sprawl and its impact is now noticeable in areas like Sutton South and Sutton West. Figures show that Sutton is joint fourth highest of all the London Boroughs50 for the development of brownfield51 sites, which includes back garden land.52 Local neighbourhoods and Sutton’s villages are suffering as a result. There is a steady and alarming trend of back gardens being developed for high density flats and apartments. This will change the local character of our area for decades to come. Urban is described as being:

‘predominantly dense development e.g. terraced houses; mix of uses. Some arterial routes.’53

Planning: Sutton, A Collection of Villages

Figure 7.

118


Figure 8, a map of the urban and suburban characterisation in Sutton, shows that there is a large concentration of ‘urban’ characterised areas in the centre of Sutton in the lighter shade of blue. The map clearly shows that there is some creep into South Sutton and West Sutton as well as along Brighton Road and Carshalton Road. While it may be logical for the highest concentration of dwellings to be located in easily accessible and well serviced locations, urban creep must not be permitted. Urban creep also features around Wallington ‘High Street’ and the arterial routes connected to it. Figure 9 shows that twelve Council Wards in Sutton are above the London average for population density. This broadly chimes with some of the categorisations in Figure 8 for the types of area in the Borough. Interestingly, some of the most densely populated Wards include areas

with ‘suburban’ characterisation, albeit with the distinction of being designated either southern or northern suburban. Sutton South, for example, is characterised as southern suburban, in Figure 8, being

‘predominantly detached and semi- detached, with significant landscaping and grass verges.’

It is worth noting that areas shown as high density – again, in Sutton South’s case, well above the London and South West London averages – can also carry the label suburban. It is undeniable that density has a devastating influence on the character of a local area. If suburban Wards carry such high population densities (in comparison with London regional averages) we need to carry out an honest appraisal of what is happening to our suburban realm.

54. Ibid.

Figure 8.54

119


We need a policy principle, which is clearly enunciated, saying that high population density is undesirable and that effective planning should seek to reduce it. Figure 8 shows a cluster effect of urbanisation around some of our villages, for example Carshalton and Cheam. It should be the case that planning policy reflects the priorities of our villages as centres of local identity in Sutton rather than encroaching onto them so that they become just another part of the increasing urban sprawl. As stated earlier, one of the key contributors to increasing density in an area is ‘garden grabbing’. This is occurring at an alarming rate in Sutton. This is an area of duplicity in Liberal Democrat policy. Despite supporting a Council Motion in October 200656 signalling steadfast opposition to the obliteration of Sutton’s back gardens for the purposes of overdevelopment, the Council’s leadership has done very little to protect them. It is even more bizarre that while one of

the Liberal Democrat MPs for the Borough has introduced a bill to parliament entitled the ‘Protection of Garden Land (Development Control) Bill’, his party colleagues on the Council’s Development Control Committee have frequently ceded many back gardens to developers. The fact is that garden land is a target for developers because they are designated as brownfield sites. These sites are easily built upon and generally fall under the requirement to provide social housing. We have illustrated how Sutton has been unveiled as one of the highest developers of brownfield sites in Greater London. This overdevelopment must stop. The Conservative Party’s housing policy green paper Strong Foundations: Building Homes and Communities57 has unveiled a commitment to the protection of back gardens through enhanced powers at local government level and the removal of garden land from brownfield site designation. We strongly support this commitment.

55. Ibid. 56. Meeting of the Full Council on 30 October 2006. 57. Strong Foundations: Building Homes and Communities p. 20. See http://www.conservatives.com/~/media/Files/Green%20Papers/Housing-Green-Paper.ashx?dl=true

Figure 9.55

120


This will be achieved by making Local Development Frameworks more flexible by being principle-based rather than rules-based. This will represent a critical control shift between Councils and Central Government allowing local authorities to fight overdevelopment on their own terms and to take active steps to prevent garden grabbing.58

Sutton Council needs to ensure that any developments in our villages are in keeping with their local character and that gardens are truly protected from the developer. Rigorous policies and protections need to be set in place to achieve this.

Protection in policy alone is not enough, it requires strong political leadership to accompany policy and, if necessary, to enforce it. Actions speak louder than words. Sutton needs a party that has real influence locally, regionally and nationally. The clear need for strong political leadership on planning needs to be married to what we shall call the ‘Twin Pillars for Better Planning’: firstly, a clear vision for our Borough and, secondly, a greater emphasis on community-approved development.

The Twin Pillars For Better Planning: A Vision For Community-Led Planning Culture “The Lib Dems are not just empty. They are a void within a vacuum surrounded by a vast inanition.” Boris Johnson - Mayor of London It is our firm contention, as outlined in the introduction to this chapter, that the political leadership of Sutton Council lacks any strategic vision for our Borough. It suffers from myopia when it comes to crafting a unique selling point for the London Borough of Sutton. Croydon and Kingston, however, have carved their respective niches as major shopping centres whilst Sutton does not appear to have been so forward in shaping any identity for itself. As a consequence of this, Sutton is simply not as well known as its neighbours. The sad result is that Sutton has unfulfilled potential. It is our second firm contention that our planning system does not work with local residents by placing their wishes and priorities at the centre of our planning policy and processes. In a similar way to transport measures, planning is something that is done to residents. We believe in community-led planning and that the Council has a duty to residents to provide a planning culture which is fair and transparent for them. We believe in people-centred planning.

58. The ethos of a control shift between Councils and Government is enshrined in Control Shift – Returning Power to Local Communities, Conservative Party Policy Green Paper, 17 February 2009.

Shadow Housing Minister Grant Shapps is committed to action on garden-grabbing.

121


The Conservative Party nationally has embraced a control shift in the relationship between local authorities and government in order to correct 13 years of centralisation and top-down targets from New Labour Governments.60 Under Labour the role of local councillors in the planning process has become gradually more and more neutered and ineffective. Councillors sitting on development control committees have found that their roles are now quasi-judicial at the expense of their democratic role as local representatives. Strong Foundations has said the following about the changes under Labour:

‘This has led to absurd situations where councillors who have been overwhelmingly elected, perhaps on a pledge to help shape the look and feel of their local community, are subsequently excluded from all consideration of that issue within their council because their position is regarded as prejudiced and their judgement fettered.’61

Consequently, it is no wonder that there is considerable cynicism about local politics, especially when the local candidate one has voted for ends up having little ability or power to shape the community, in terms of planning, and therefore that which they were elected to do. This is no different in Sutton. The Government’s top-down ‘targets’ culture on planning application completion rates has meant that local authorities like Sutton have had to adopt systems that place power in the hands of council planning officers through ‘delegated powers’ and that these powers have to be exercised within very tight timeframes. In Sutton, the vast majority of planning decisions are delegated to council officers, see Figure 10. This creates a democratic deficit in Sutton’s planning apparatus adding to our Borough of Contradictions. With such a vast majority of applications being delegated to officers - admittedly through necessity caused by Government

59. 2007-08 figures 60. Control Shift – Returning Power to Local Communities. 61. Strong Foundations: Building Homes and Communities p. 17

Planning Application decisions by type

92%

8%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Officer DelegatedDecisions (1559)

Development Control(143)

% o

f pla

nnin

g a

pplic

ations (T

ota

l

1702)

Figure 10.59

122


– local councillors are unable to respond to the democratic demands of their constituents surrounding planning applications. When Sutton councillors refuse applications they often run the risk of expensive appeals from developers armed with expensive legal advice. Appeals are decided by Planning Inspectors who are experts in the field of planning law. They tend not to be experts of the locality that they are judging. As a result, a significant number of planning refusals are successful on appeal. In Sutton, on average half of all refusals made at the Development Control Committee (DCC) by elected councillors that go to appeal, are overturned by the Planning Inspectorate, see Figure 11. Members of the Housing, Planning and Transport Policy Group have reported that members of the Development Control Committee have been advised by the Council’s planning officers not to refuse an application because of the cost of an appeal.

62. Strong Foundations: Building Homes and Communities p. 25 63. This appears to be above the national average of a third of appeals being allowed. The Killian Pretty Review: Planning applications - A faster and more responsive system: Final Report, 24 November 2008, Department for Communities and Local Government research paper.

Sutton Development Control Committee Refusals

55%

45%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Committee Refusals Overturned onAppeal (11)

Committee Refusals Upheld onAppeal (9)

Financial handcuffs should not be the sole determinant on whether to grant planning permission or not. DCC members, within the bounds of reasonableness, must not find their discretion fettered on the grounds of the potential cost of planning appeals. The public purse must be protected but by the same token the Council must be robust in fighting for the local character of our streets and neighbourhoods in the face of the developer’s bulldozer. These results are, of course, in accordance with planning law, but as Strong Foundations observes, the system is inherently adversarial62 and the only party which finds itself without a sufficiently robust voice is that of local residents. Planning and development is something that happens to local residents because they feel as though they do not have a sufficient voice in proceedings. Despite being legally sound, the fact that over half of all refusal decisions by elected councillors are overturned, seems to represent a contradiction of local democracy.63 Figure 11.

Sutton Development Control Refusals 2007-08

123


Members of the Policy Group have expressed their exasperation at what is perceived to be a lack of willingness to fight Sutton’s corner against the top-down regime from Central Government. We attribute this malaise to the political leadership of the Council which is too often silent on planning because of its lack of ambition and vision. We also contend this is slavish adherence to Whitehall, solely in pursuit of obtaining Government financial incentives to boost the Council’s income stream. We contend that the Borough misses out as a result. We need this compliance deficiency to end and for the First Pillar For Better Planning, that of vision, to be firmly rooted in Council policy.

There is too often a blame game here in Sutton whereby the Council is keen to blame Central Government and the Greater London Authority for its own failures. The political leadership of Sutton has no drive for using its own initiative and tends to think towards their own tactical and thus political advantage rather than for the strategic benefit of the Borough. We do not believe in such self-serving political face-saving. The Second Pillar for Better Planning is to bring the community closer to the planning process. In order to do this the Council must break with its addiction to a top-down approach. Conservative national policy has demonstrated a steadfast commitment to the ethos behind our Twin Pillars for Better Planning model. Core pledges include ensuring that the views of local residents are genuinely taken into

account at the start of the planning process, by making pre-application consultations between developers and local residents mandatory for major applications. It has also promised to guarantee that councillors will be free to campaign and to represent their constituents on planning issues.64

Using Planning Tools To Protect Our Borough Defending The Suburban Realm The introduction to this report draws attention to the armoury of protective tools which local authorities have at their disposal, including Conservation Areas (CAs) Areas of Special Local Character (ASLC) and Special Policy Areas (SPA). These tools form ramparts against harmful development. Conservation Areas carry the most weight. They provide protection against unsympathetic proposals for development. They are characterised not by individual buildings alone, but by a mixture of factors that make up the local scene from the road network to paving materials, thoroughfares, mixture of uses contemporary and historical, trees, street furniture and much more.65 They are areas of historical or architectural merit which warrant special protection. The first CA was created in 1967 and there are currently over 8000 across the country. As a local authority Sutton has the power to create CAs. Once created the Council has the duty to ensure that the protection and enhancement of the area is achieved

64. Strong Foundations: Building Homes and Communities p. 6 65. See English Heritage: http://www.english-heritage.org.uk/server/show/nav.1063

124


Conservation Area Area (ha) Character Appraisal

Management Plan

Further Information

Sutton Garden Suburb 8.5ha Completed 2006 Adopted 2008 Designated 1989 Article 4 Direction approved 1992

Wallington Green 3.5ha Completed 2007 Adopted 2007 Designed 1971

Carshalton Village 43ha Completed 2007 2009 Designated 1968 Boundary review 1993

Cheam Village 29ha Started 2008 2009 Designated 1970 Boundary review 1994

Wrythe Green 5ha 2009 2010 Designated 1968 Boundary review 1994

Carew Manor, Beddington 15ha 2010 2010 Designated 1977 Surveyed 1996

Landseer Road, Sutton 9ha 2010 2010 Designed 1992

Grove Avenue, Sutton 1.4ha 2010 2010 Designated 1992

Park Hill, Carshalton 2ha 2011 2011 Designated 1992

Carshalton Park 14ha 2011 2011 Designated 1993

Beddington Park 58ha 2011 2011 Designated 1993

Beddington Village 10ha 2012 2012 Designated 1994 Surveyed 1996

Church Lane, Beddington 1.5ha 2012 2012 Designated 1994 Surveyed 1996

Holy Trinity, Wallington

1.4ha 2012 2012 Designated 1994 Surveyed 1994

Figure 13 shows that there is established use of CAs to protect our suburban environment from the menace of overdevelopment. This is welcomed, but such a high level of protection does not

66. Section 71 (7), Planning (Listed Buildings & Conservation Areas) Act [1990]. 67. Ibid, Section 70 (4).

Figure 12.

Figure 13.

and to publish proposals and plans to that effect.66 Statutory duties also require approval from the Secretary of State with regard to any proposed development.67

Sutton has 14 CAs, see Figure 12.

125


extend far beyond them. Figure 8 gives a more up-to-date depiction of the CAs and ASLCs across the Borough than Figure 12 with some of the newer ASLCs being included, for example Anne Boleyn’s Walk, in Cheam and Pine Walk in Carshalton Beeches. SPAs have been created in South Sutton, South Cheam and Carshalton Beeches but are not based on historical importance. Instead they reflect the quality of development and the townscape value. They are not recognised by law in the same way that CAs are. The lack of legal status for SPAs means that they do not provide the best possible protection against development. Sutton has 174 statutory listed buildings and structures at Grades I, II or II* with their status administered by English Heritage.68 For example, Wallington Town Hall was granted listed building status as a building of historical and architectural interest. Sutton currently has three listed buildings/structures which English Heritage has placed on its ‘at risk’ register: the lych-gate at the entrance to the West Churchyard extension at St. Mary’s Church, Beddington, the Orangery Wall at Beddington Place, and the Grotto at Carshalton Park. Urgent attention should be given to these architectural and historical assets in the Borough and the Council should strain every sinew to work with English Heritage to see them protected. Sutton operates a ‘Local Listing’ scheme for buildings of local importance. Although they do not provide statutory protection they are a flexible and easier way to allocate importance to buildings

that carry significance to the local scene and/or have local historical importance. Sutton currently has 35 locally listed buildings in the Borough with the mock Tudor design buildings in The Broadway, Cheam, as an example of recently added structures. This scheme is a cost-effective and flexible way of identifying buildings or structures of merit and importance to the local community with a Council protection status. This places the onus on the owner to maintain its character. It is less bureaucratic than other alternatives. The Council should look to make better use of the Local List in protecting our suburban environment and the buildings within it that make it special.

Unfortunately, as a local authority we cannot change a 60 year body of planning law, built up from case law and statute, but the Council’s political leadership has very real power to change the culture surrounding local planning. Thus far it has chosen not to do so. We believe it should.

68. Under the 1990 Act.

126


Green Council? In a similar way to Sutton’s planning policy, the Council has worthy aspirations and its vision statements explicitly state an intention to shape an environmentally friendly Borough. The Council’s vision, as included in its Core Planning Strategy section ‘Achieving Environmental Sustainability’ and ‘Improving the Streetscene and Living Environment’ reads:

‘“An environmentally sustainable suburban Borough, building on Sutton’s reputation as a greener, cleaner Borough [sic] and working towards the Council’s long-term goal of ‘One Planet Living’ by addressing the causes and potential impacts of climate change, promoting built energy efficiency and renewables, cutting pollution, reducing waste, managing flood risk and protecting habitats and species diversity” - And -

“An attractive and distinctive suburban Borough, offering a high quality residential environment, well designed buildings, ‘liveable’ streets and public spaces and, in which all development contributes towards safe, cohesive and sustainable communities”.70

It would be churlish to suggest that Sutton Council has not benefited from a green reputation in the past. As the green agenda founds its roots in British politics in the late 1980s, Sutton found itself in the new wave of local authorities promoting the recycling agenda which, as we have pointed out, local residents have embraced. In fact it first introduced kerbside collection of paper to households in 1992. However, when you strip the marketing and rhetoric away, in terms of real action the Council’s efforts can be described as somewhat ordinary – a gaping difference between the grandiosity and the reality or, of course, a Borough of Contradictions.

69. Residents’ Survey, p.73 7-. AMR 2007-08, p.117.

The Environment: Broad Aims, Narrow Delivery

Recycling Services Survey: How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the quality of recycling

services that are provided locally?

3%

2%

8%

11%

18%

59%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

No Opinion

Very Dissatisfied

Fairly Dissatisfied

Neither

Very Satisfied

Fairly Satisfied

Figure 14.69

127


Recycling: The Facts Recent studies show that the majority of Sutton residents are satisfied with the recycling facilities offered to them in the Borough (see Figure 14). Statistics also show that residents have strong views about waste and its management with widespread concern expressed regarding household waste levels (Figure 15). However, on the latter statistic it is worth noting that over a third of residents are not concerned by the levels of household waste. It is important that we understand why they are not concerned, especially

given the immense pressures facing local government arising from the landfill taxes that we have to contend with. It may be surprising for readers to discover that recycling rates, according to the latest figures available, have dropped. And, as pointed out in our environmental introduction, it may come as a further surprise to discover that Sutton ranks at 213th out of 394 waste authorities in the country, according to performance assessment criteria set by Defra. Figure 16 shows that recycling fell from 2005 to 2007 (latest figures) in paper, cardboard,

71. Ibid. 72. Ibid, p.74

1

17%

40%

27%

9%7%

Q Thinking now about household waste or rubbish, overall, how concerned would you say you are about the amount of household waste produced each year in Sutton

Rubbish produced each year

Not very concerned Fairly concerned

Very concernedNot at all concerned

Don’t know

Base: 813 Sutton Residents, 12th October – 19th November 2007

Figure 15.71

Q Which of the following, if any, do you currently regularly recycle?

85%72%72%

66%51%

40%38%

28%15%

9%0%

9%1%

Current recycling habits

Paper

Cardboard

Plastics

Glass

Steel & Aluminium Cans

Textiles

Doorstep collection of green garden waste

Food waste

Electrical items

Car batteries/oil

Other

None

Don’t know

(62)(30)(58)(37)(13)(11)(*)(5)(1)

(71)(69)(80)(90)

2005%

Figure 16.72

128


glass, steel and aluminium cans and car batteries. We have entitled this section of the chapter ‘Broad Aims, Narrow Delivery’ and this is eminently true when we look at the Council’s Environmental Services Committee’s 50% recycling target for household waste set over a decade ago.73 The 2008 overall recycling achievement is less than a third, see figure 17. Just under a third of Sutton’s waste is recycled with 69% of Municipal Solid Waste (MSW)74 going to landfill (64.79% of which is household waste landfilled). Our recycling figures are less than impressive in comparison to the grand rhetoric of the Liberal Democrat administration. With 69% of the Borough’s waste going to landfill we need to examine whether the leadership of this Council is really that green.

Sutton is behind London Boroughs like Bexley, Bromley, Harrow, Hillingdon and even Richmond-upon-Thames for its recycling performance in nationwide league tables. It should look at what they are doing right. If this requires shedding its political green pride, then so be it. Minimising waste – especially when facing £40 per tonne landfill taxes – should be a better measure of delivery rather than broad rhetoric.75

73. 7 October 1998 74. MSW is a waste type which predominantly includes household rubbish as well as some local commercial waste. This may account for the difference between the 64.79% and 69% figures for waste sent to landfill. 75. It is to be welcomed that the Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, has said that an incoming Conservative Government will look to place a floor on landfill tax for a decade from 2010 onwards in order to give much needed stability to the system. See: Today Programme, Wednesday 9 July 2008.

Sutton's Waste Out-Turns for 2007/08

22.61%

9.86%

69%

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

80.00%

Waste Recycled Composting Waste sent to landfill

Figure 17.

129


Working With Residents This chapter has highlighted the importance of working with residents to achieve our aims for the Borough in the areas of planning and transport. This vital change of attitude is needed just as much in pursuing a greener and cleaner vision for Sutton. We have identified the fact that Sutton’s residents have an awareness of waste issues and want to recycle but that the political leadership of the Council does not seem to be keeping its end of the bargain with fairly unimpressive recycling figures and sizeable (and costly) landfill tonnage. The importance of trusting and empowering residents to do the right thing with carrots rather than sticks has been explored earlier in this chapter. We have signalled our support for the concept of nudging people in the right direction rather than shoving them. There

are wide opportunities for this kind of approach in recycling and green measures too. Research shows that people would separate their rubbish for recycling if offered financial incentives. Studies show that lower income families, in particular, would be encouraged to do this if it was accompanied by a financial reward. Figure 18 shows the percentages of surveyed residents who were receptive and less receptive to this carrot approach. Nationally, the Conservatives are looking at incentives for improving recycling and waste minimisation. Evidence from American schemes, like RecycleBank,76

shows that people will recycle more if paid to do so.77 It has been credited with recycling increases of up to 200% which have turned some of the poorest communities from the worst recyclers to

76. See: https://www.recyclebank.com/ 77. BBC News, Tories unveil recycling pay plans, Wednesday 9 July 2008

Saving The Planet Doesn’t Have To Cost The Earth

7

26%

31%

18%

22%

2%

Q To what extent would a financial incentive for separating those items for collection from your kerbside, encourage you to do so?

Financial incentive

Not very much A fair amount

A great dealNot at all

Don’t know

Base: 813 Sutton Residents, 12th October – 19th November 2007

Figure 18.

130


the best.78 Conservatives in local government are leading the way on this approach with the Shadow Chancellor working with the LGA and the Mayor of London, Boris Johnson as well as Conservative Councils up and down the country. The Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead became the first United Kingdom local authority to embrace such an incentive-based scheme.79 The Ipsos MORI survey results in Figure 18, when broken down, show that low income households were particularly receptive to the idea of financial rewards for separating waste. Two in five households said that it would give them a great deal of encouragement (37% of surveyed residents compared to 26% overall). Additionally, households with children were 9% more receptive to the financial incentives scheme. Evidence shows that rewarding people helps to increase recycling. This can in turn reduce waste being sent to landfill which will save the Council money. Sutton Council’s message on waste minimisation and environmental issues can often be rather abstract and not immediately intuitive to Sutton residents. Take the concept of ‘One Planet Living’80 as an example. One Planet Living is a ‘global initiative’ based on ten principles for environmental sustainability including zero carbon emissions, the notion that car use is contributing to global warming and climate change, and an anti-industrial farming agenda. The core contention of ‘One Planet Sutton’ is that we need three Planet Earths to sustain Sutton’s current needs.

But what does this kind of abstract and otherworldly narrative mean to local residents?

Worthy aims must be married to common sense when promoting environmental sustainability – as it stands the political leadership is divorced from the realities of day-to-day life. Grand principles and idealistic ecological mantras have their place, but we favour investment in more common sense, down-to-earth and pragmatic measures like incentive schemes, to deliver a truly sustainable Borough for Sutton. An honest examination of the cost-effectiveness of Sutton Council’s recent initiatives needs to be carried out. Action speaks louder than words. Community-Led Environmental Action One of the threads of The State of Sutton: A Borough of Contradictions is that the Council is often conceited enough to think it is the source of all answers to the problems and challenges facing our Borough. Earlier in this chapter, and in

78. The Guardian, Nudge, nudge, win, win, George Osborne MP, Monday 14 July 2008. 79. Royal Borough of Windsor and Maidenhead, see: http://www.rbwm.gov.uk/web/news_32408_pilot_waste_incentive_scheme.htm 80. See: http://www.oneplanetliving.org and http://www.oneplanetsutton.org.

Bioregional, a social enterprise based in Hackbridge, works with private companies like B&Q to reduce their impact on the Environment through Corporate Social Responsibility policies and initiatives..

131


others, we have talked about ‘post-bureaucratic’ solutions to issues. Tackling threats to our environment, such as pollution and the need to minimise waste, is clearly an area which can benefit from a more enabling Sutton Council rather than a commanding one. Often, local people know what needs to be done and do not need to wait for the Council to tell them how to do it. They just need a helping hand. Take the Belmont and South Cheam Residents’ Association,81 for example. During the height of the Green Garden Waste controversy, whereby the Liberal Democrats decided to axe the free

collection service, the Association clubbed together to purchase their own device to deal with green waste; a wood chipper. The Council had abdicated its responsibility in providing the service to make environmentally friendly behaviour easier rather than harder, so the Residents’ Association rolled up its

sleeves and continued to take responsibility despite, not because of, the Council. In March 2007, the Liberal Democrat administration scrapped the ‘Adopt-a-Bank’ scheme which invited local community groups to adopt recycling centres. Adopt-a-Bank had run successfully for 18 years with industrious groups like the Girl Guides, church groups, Friends of Libraries, Scouts, a local wild animal hospital etc taking community ownership of recycling centres to ensure their smooth running, keeping them clear and functional and reporting any problems to the Council. The groups would receive nominal sums of money for the tonnage of recycled material and cost Sutton Council £18,000 per annum. Schemes like this help local people to take ownership of activities to improve our environment and to minimise our waste. The Council is not the solution to everything; we need to look outside the boundaries of the Civic Offices and to trust our community. As in other areas in local government, a degree of control shifting would be welcome in policy surrounding the environment. In order to achieve these aims public goodwill is necessary. Policy failures like the Green Garden Waste Disaster jeopardise residents’ goodwill in this area.

81. See: http://www.bscra.com

Based on a successful system in the States, Windsor and Maidenhead offer RecycleBank reward points based on the amount residents recycle and divert from landfill. These points can then be used in shops such as Marks & Spencers or donated to charity. Working with the private sector and char-ities can help kick-start such initiatives.

132


In 1999 the Council introduced a garden waste collection service to approximately 61,500 households. Each household was provided with two reusable sacks, with additional sacks purchasable for £1 each. The sacks were emptied and returned on a fortnightly basis with no restriction on the number of sacks put out. In June 2008, to much controversy, this old service was scrapped and a new chargeable service introduced. Residents were charged £35 per bag. The doomed policy was described by the local press as a ‘fiasco’. The controversial cuts caused an epidemic of fly-tipping across the Borough82 and huge tailbacks at the Re-use and Recycling Centre on the Kimpton Industrial Estate as residents sought to avoid the new £35 charge.83 Figure 19 illustrates some of the bad publicity. It turned out that the new bags

were smaller than the older free bags. After much pressure the new chargeable service was scrapped. The Council’s corporate reputation was damaged by this policy disaster and the relationship between the residents and the local authority severely compromised. The man behind the changes, the Executive Councillor for the Environment, faced a motion of no confidence in the council chamber as well as widespread condemnation in the local media. The inability of the Council’s administration to see the writing on the wall for this policy, before it was too late, demonstrates a lack of foresight and a reckless willingness to risk public goodwill on the line for a short-term budget saving. In the end it cost the taxpayer approximately £750,000 to put the scheme right simply so that the administration could save political face.

82. Sutton Guardian, 3 July 2008. 83. Sutton Guardian, 12 June 2008.

Case Study: Green Garden Waste Disaster, Risking Residents’ Goodwill

Figure 19.

133


Protecting Our Borough’s Green Lungs Our Natural Inheritance Our Borough has a wealth of natural assets in the form of our large green open spaces, including 616 hectares of Metropolitan Green Belt, 530 hectares of Metropolitan Open Land (MOL), two Metropolitan Parks covering 125 hectares, three District Parks forming 80 hectares, thirty-six local parks totalling 217 hectares and 203 small areas of small public open space providing a total of 94 hectares. Sutton also boasts several parks with Green Flag Status, including Grove Park, the Ecology Centre grounds, Margaret’s Pool in Carshalton, Oaks Park and Cheam Park.84

Trees are known to form a natural barrier against CO2 emissions and other airborne pollutants. Figure 20 shows that 17% of our Borough’s trees reside in our parks and open spaces. We contend that the wealth of tree laden open green space in our Borough forms a green lung against CO2 emissions and the pollution risks of being an outer London Borough. Figure 21 shows us that Sutton compares

favourably with other areas in Greater London for tree density per hectare.86 The majority of our tree population is located in private back gardens and as we have concluded in our planning section of this chapter, we must protect these valuable assets. Figure 22 shows per capita CO2

emissions. Compared to the UK and London, Sutton has below average emissions of CO2. Therefore it is not difficult to make a link between the two. If we are to maintain or improve the above emissions rating we need to protect the green lungs of our Borough. Over the last few years the amount of trees cut down by this authority far exceeds those that are replanted to take their place. In the period 2004-2006 the Council replanted only 19.5% of the trees felled and during 2007-2008 it replaced 59.5% of removed trees. To date in 2008-2009 the number of trees cut down stands at 328. The current tree replanting policy stands at 80 new trees per year.

84. The Green Flag Award is the national standard for parks and green spaces in England and Wales, see: http://www.greenflagaward.org.uk 85. Connecting Londoners with Trees and Woodland: A Tree and Woodland Framework for London, Mayor of London’s Office, March 2005, p.3. 86. Sutton Council figures, see: http://www.sutton.gov.uk/index.aspx?articleid=3967

The tallest London Plane in Britain, situated in Festival Walk, Carshalton is one example of an impressive selection of mature trees in the Borough.

Figure 20.85

134


We argue that this is grossly inadequate. For a Council that purports to be green, to wish to tackle emissions and even has a tree for its logo, Sutton’s massacre of its green lungs needs wholesale re-evaluation. The stark divergence of our town hall leadership’s rhetoric and the reality of their actions represents a shocking contradiction. We believe that our trees are priceless assets for the Borough. We do not own

our Borough’s green lungs, we are merely their custodians for the next generation. The Council leadership’s passivity to the development of back gardens and its clearly evidenced disregard for our Borough’s trees is a clear abdication of the environmental responsibility that any Council leadership owes to successive generations of Sutton residents. No Conservative administration would shirk its responsibility in this area.

Figure 22.87

Figure 21.

87. Source: 2006 figures from AEA Energy & Environment on behalf of Defra, September 2008.

135


Conclusions

This chapter has sought to give an account of Sutton’s performance - good and bad - in the policy areas covering transport, planning and our environment. All three are matters of huge importance to the wellbeing of our Borough, its infrastructure and our residents. It will be apparent to readers that we are advocates of the nudge approach to public administration. This approach favours carrots and not sticks. It is a philosophical, as well as a pragmatic approach to working with residents to achieve beneficial changes that will yield results for the individual as well as the community. The internal cultural notion that large bureaucracies like Sutton Council are the sole source of beneficial change is one we take issue with.

Equally as objectionable is the idea that our local representatives somehow have the right to boss residents about, cajole them, tax them, and browbeat them into compliance on various agendas. This idea will be explored further in our Council Culture chapter. In the context of transport we argue that the political leadership of the Council needs to abandon its apparent addiction

to hard methods of changing travel behaviour. Its inconsistent and financially imbued commitment to soft options in bidding for TfL funding is betrayed by its use of hard options locally. We see this as an ideological predilection. We argue for greater attention to the parts of the Borough that are not well serviced in terms of public transport and that this needs a higher priority status. The Liberal Democrat leadership is right to have a firm desire to reduce congestion but as we have pointed out, it is better done through enticement, nudging and making alternatives easier. The benefits of reduced congestion, both in transport and environmental terms, are too great to risk through political rigidity.

We celebrate the attitude of the Strategic Director for Environment and Leisure and other senior council officers in their approach to the application of nudge theory in council services. We hope that the political leadership of the Council will truly take note and abandon their conflicting approach. This approach has been characterised in this chapter as a “War Against Residents” in transport policy. In citing this aggressive policy approach we have looked at the drastic

The political leadership of the Council needs to abandon its apparent

addiction to hard methods of changing

travel behaviour.

Mike Freer, Leader of Conservative-run Barnet Council which was the first Local Authority to receive funding specifically to put the ideas of “Nudge” into public policy.

136


reductions in CPZ visitor hours and the doomed proposal of using the punitive Richmond-style scheme of VED bands for the price of parking permits. The need for cultural political shifts is also in our approach to the planning system. Rhetoric promises one thing and reality demonstrates another. We cannot change planning law because we have no legislative power. But we can change our attitude to planning and development. The Council leadership seems reluctant, or perhaps even unable, to achieve this. The contradiction is powerful and it is painful. They have very real power here. So why will they not use it?

Overdevelopment and poorly thought-out development is damaging our community and our neighbourhoods. High population density is not desirable and the impact of creeping urban sprawl is clear for all to see. This is why we advocate our ‘Twin Pillars’ approach of shaping a robust vision for Sutton and changing our planning culture to be community focused. Planning should not be something that is done to residents; instead it needs to be fair and

transparent. Part of the reason there is a democratic deficit in local planning is because of the top-down target culture from Central Government, but this must not formulate a list of extensive excuses for the political administration. This fruitless blame game needs to end. We need to start using the tools we have got, to defend our suburban realm and, if necessary, to get tough and fight our corner on planning issues with

developers and governmental agencies. Frankly, the leadership of the Council owes residents more loyalty than is currently being showed. As we have said, the local authority has benefited from a reputation as a green council. But Sutton is trading on past glories. Sutton Council’s performance on recycling does not match its grandiose rhetoric. Its broad aims are undermined by narrow delivery. We benefit from a motivated and informed populace who have embraced the recycling agenda with enthusiasm. Yet again, we need to become a facilitator for environmental action. The amount of waste we send to landfill is unsustainable and will prove to be cripplingly costly. The Conservative Party approach of providing financial incentives for recycling has been proven to be attractive

Sutton is trading on past glories. Sutton Council’s

performance on recycling does not match

its grandiose rhetoric.

Every elected member will recognise the sentiment expressed by residents in Coleridge Avenue, Carshalton when the fourth planning application was submitted to knock down an attractive house to make way for a number of smaller houses.

137


to residents, particularly those in lower income households.

Environmental messages need to be accessible to residents and realistic. Common sense is the best way to get residents attuned to the aims of an environmentally sustainable Borough. It is also a way of ensuring goodwill. The Council’s leadership has imperilled this goodwill on a number of occasions and does so recklessly. We also see evidence that the Liberal Democrat administration is failing to protect the environmental assets of the Borough in some important areas, and consequently it is damaging the natural inheritance for future generations in Sutton. Its inadequate policies on trees, in particular, demonstrate a lack of vision and will to maintain and even enhance these natural assets. We contend that this gross abdication of responsibility must end and that the duty of protecting the characters of our Borough is solemn and requires greater commitment in delivery, rather than just rhetoric. In transport, planning and the environment, the London Borough of Sutton can no longer afford to be a Borough of such stark contradictions.

We advocate our ‘Twin Pillars’ approach of

shaping a robust vision for Sutton and changing our planning culture to be community focused.

138


139

The State of Sutton: A Borough of Contradictions Council Culture: The Council of Contradictions

Council Culture: The Council of Contradictions

140


Introduction A Detached Council Leadership Throughout this report it has been our contention that Sutton is a Borough of Contradictions, by this we mean that there are many things to celebrate in Sutton and many things to be concerned about. Most of all we think that this is true of the Council itself. We believe that the Council’s political leadership is becoming increasingly detached from the day-to-day realities of life in Sutton. The connection between elected representatives and residents needs drastic improvement. Britain is in the grip of the worst recession for 70 years; Sutton residents are worried about their jobs, savings, mortgages and rent, yet council tax has never been so high. Figures show that Sutton’s unemployment figures have doubled over the last year and that it features as one of the hardest hit London Boroughs. Because the political leadership is so distant from the people of Sutton, it is not reflecting the needs of the community through its tax-levying powers. Records show that council tax under the Liberal Democrats has never stopped rising. We contend that this is symptomatic of a political addiction to tax increases. The contradiction here is painfully obvious: Sutton residents are feeling the pinch in this recession and the Council will not use its most direct power to make the financial burden easier on local households.

As a corollary to this, another contradiction unveils itself. The Council’s leadership will blame anyone and everyone apart from itself for its above average levels of council tax. Be it the Government, the Greater London Authority or the Council’s status as a ‘floor authority’, the political leadership never accepts responsibility. Sadly, there is no evidence that Sutton’s political leaders give council staff the support they need, in order to fight the Borough’s corner in its relationship with other Governmental bodies. Consistently, the Liberal Democrat Council Leader and his Executive fall back on the now fatigued boast of the Audit Commission’s Four Star ‘Improving Strongly’ status.1 We argue that star ratings from remote quangos do not chime with residents. Instead customer satisfaction from local people is the real indicator of this Council’s effectiveness. Such awards mean nothing to residents who have to contend with some of the highest council tax rates in London. The Liberal Democrat administration also has to go a very long way before it can truly call its efforts in consultation with residents in any way credible. Numerous budget consultations have shown that the administration does not take the necessary effort to ascertain the views of residents when setting a financial budget. Despite it being the most important decision of the political year, the administration does not do as much as it can to ascertain residents’ priorities. In not taking consultation with residents seriously, the Council’s administration is failing in its duty.

1. The Audit Commission is a quango designed to improve effectiveness in local public services, auditing over 11,000 public bodies with budgets totalling £200billion. See Audit Commission website: http://cpa.audit-commission.gov.uk/STCCScorecard.aspx?taxid=105155

141


Trusting People: Post-Bureaucratic Local Politics A theme has run through several of the chapters in this report, namely the notion that as an organ of the State, Sutton Council is quite untrusting and even imperious in its relationship with external stakeholders, like the voluntary sector, and the Council’s customers, the resident taxpayers. As we have explored in the issue of Youth Provision, a number of barriers prevent the Council from allowing those ‘in the know’ from getting on with the job of improving our Borough. We argue that the most troublesome barrier to have been erected is the unhealthy sense of risk aversion. It is this absence of trust that creates malaise in our local public life. It is as though the Liberal Democrat leadership of Sutton Council has taken a centralist leaf out of the Labour Government’s book and views any innovation, which is not sanctioned and grown in-house, with suspicion, and to be greeted with very lukewarm support. With the real prospect of localism just around the corner, Sutton would benefit from the tripartite approach favoured by prominent thinkers in the Conservative Party which aims to see a control shift to individuals, local communities and neighbourhoods, and the local authority as the locally accountable democratic institution of local government. As such, Sutton can also learn more from Westminster Council’s neighbourhood approach in order to strengthen the role of backbench councillors in local areas.

Just as local authorities are better placed than Central Government and regional quangos to make the decisions that will affect their areas the most, so are local people and local communities. Sutton Council needs to learn that it is not always the best vessel for change and improvements in our Borough, and that sometimes it may need to switch to a facilitator role. Several chapters have indicated support for the Nudge Theory of Richard Thaler and Cass Sunstein. The application of nudge approaches will symbolise a wholesale departure from the Council leadership’s current practices. Sutton is currently run by ‘command politicians’ who ‘do things to residents’. We think that the Council should ‘help residents to do the right thing’ and to work with them wherever possible. In fact, we should be more sensitive to the “us” and “them” lexicon which frequently creeps into the Council/resident relationship, often with malign consequences. The Council could learn a lot from Thaler and Sunstein’s thesis and it is edifying to see that senior staff have an understanding and appreciation of the exciting potential to Sutton’s local governance which nudging presents. Value For Money We also contend that the Council does not represent true value for money and that, despite the hard work of many council officers, Sutton’s political leaders show little inclination to remedy this. In the instances when it does accumulate reserves, makes savings and/or achieves budget underspends, savings are not passed on to the taxpayer. Instead, the

142


administration always opts to spend money, even when it has come from windfalls. The political leadership of the Council pays lip service to value for money and ‘innovation’ in driving down costs and making efficiency savings but it does not want to use the most effective tool there is to achieve these ends - the market. Fundamentally, Sutton is an in-house provider of services and the political leadership is hostile to testing the market through the use of ‘Competitive Compulsory Tendering’ (CCT) for contracts and services. Quite simply, there is no desire to change in order to achieve real cost savings. One symptom of this is the Council’s leviathan ‘partnership’ arrangements which do not always seek out value for money. Finally, we have said that Liberal Democrat political leaders do not give the backing to council officers to play ‘hard ball’ with other agencies, including the Council’s partners and Central Government. The leadership seems too eager to please other organisations despite being elected on a manifesto that makes them directly accountable to local people. We argue that this represents a contradiction, perhaps the very worst of all, because it illustrates the ultimate betrayal of local people, especially those who voted for the Liberal Democrats. The Liberal Democrat leadership of the Council cannot make the big changes nationally and is unwilling to do so locally, with local residents losing out as a result.

2. Carswell and Hannan published 2008. 3. Place Survey 2008-09, Ipsos MORI, p.16. 4. Ibid 5. Residents’ Survey, Ipsos MORI, February 2008, p.34.

Disconnected: Council Tax, Consultation and Council Leadership ‘Local government barely has a pulse’. The Plan: Twelve Months To Renew Britain2 Douglas Carswell MP, Daniel Hannan MEP Consultation? What consultation? Public participation in local democracy is weak locally and nationally. Engagement between local authorities and the residents they serve is also in an enfeebled state. In the May 2006 local elections in Sutton, the Borough-wide average turnout was 43%. This is disturbing as it means roughly six out of ten residents do not vote. Recent studies show that only three in ten residents (31%) feel that they can influence Council decisions.3 This places Sutton in the bottom four London Councils for influencing decisions.4 As shown in Figure One, when asked to describe Sutton Council, only 11% of residents said that Sutton ‘allows residents to participate in making decisions.’ A meagre 13% of residents said that the Council listens to the views of residents.5 It is indicative of how residents perceive their Council when so few say that they would describe it as a listening and participatory organisation. A less detached leadership with greater connectivity with residents would be expected to yield a better result. Sutton

143


also finds itself slightly below the outer London average for ‘civic participation’ with 14% of residents involved.6 In terms of participatory local democracy, this makes for depressing reading. Why do over two-thirds of Sutton feel that they cannot influence the decisions of their locality? And why did only four out of ten residents vote in the local elections? The connection and vibrancy of local democracy needs to be re-established in Sutton. Six out of ten residents chose not to vote in the last elections with the residents of St. Helier (35.28% turnout), The Wrythe (36.56%), Sutton Central (36.62%) and Wandle Valley (32.74%) appearing to be the least motivated.7 These Council Wards represent some of the socioeconomic divides which

characterise the Borough. Studies show that residents from these areas, particularly the Northern Wards, are the least likely to say that they are well informed by the Council. Those who perceive that their area has got worse over the past two years are also more likely to say that Sutton Council does not tell them very much at all about what it does.8 A prime example of how the leadership of Sutton Council has demonstrated poor commitment to consultation with residents, is its effort in consulting residents on the Council’s budget, and levels of council tax. In preparation for the 2008-09 council budget, Sutton Council conducted a six week budget consultation with the full force of its communications department.

6. Ibid, p.13. 7. All of these Wards returned Liberal Democrat councillors, with one subsequently resigning his membership to sit as an Independent. 8. Residents’ Survey, p. 40. This link between the socioeconomic status of Council Wards is also linked to value for money surveys, with those living in the Northern Wards more likely to disagree that the Council gives value for money.

Residents' phrases to describe Sutton Council

11%13%

9%

19%

0%2%4%6%8%

10%12%14%16%18%20%

"Sutton allowsresidents toparticipate in

makingdecisions"

"Sutton listens toresidents' views"

"Sutton respondsto complaints

properly"

"Sutton consultsresidents aboutissues whichaffect them"

Figure 1.

144


Its efforts managed just 22 responses. This accounts for approximately 1500th of the Borough’s population.9 The questions were deliberately innocuous and leading, with one question asking: ‘Do you agree that we should take more action early to avoid problems in the future? ’ To illustrate how poor this attempt at consultation was, a handful of Conservative councillors and activists took to Sutton High Street and in the space of only ten minutes exceeded the number of responses it took the Council six weeks to accumulate.10 One year on, in February 2009, at the close of another consultation effort by the Council, this time at the hands of a new communications department with increased budgets, 72 responses were received. This represents approximately 0.04% of Sutton’s population.11 Both instances demonstrate how low consultation on council tax levels is on the Liberal Democrat leadership’s list of priorities.

Such minute responses were attributed to the fact residents were satisfied with their Council and that the budgets put to them were “benign”. We do not accept this. The alternative budget consultation carried out by the Conservative Party showed that, on average, 80%+ of residents thought they pay too much

council tax, that they did not receive value for money for the level of council tax, and that in a time of financial hardship the Council should help residents by freezing or cutting the amount of council tax. Easing The Burden On Residents David Cameron has said that he will force high tax local authorities to hold a referendum on council tax if they propose above inflation increases.12 He has argued that local people should have the right to a greater say over local taxation and that the Government’s ‘capping’ mechanism13 is crude and too centralised.14 Capping, despite being necessary at the time of its introduction during the Thatcher years to deal with extreme left wing councils, has run its course. As shown in figure 2 (overleaf), Sutton’s level of council tax has relentlessly risen above the rate of inflation since 1995.15 Excessive increases in local taxation from the Liberal Democrats have been without mercy. We argue that it does not have to be this way. Nationally, the Conservative Party is embracing a localist policy of empowering residents to determine the

9. On February 2008 population figures for Sutton of 181,044 residents – with approximately 65-70% at voting age. 10. Conservative Press Release, Lib Dems Consult, Consider and Ignore on Council Budget, 4 February 2008. 11.Voluntary Conservative efforts on council tax consultation, on the other hand, turned in approaching 2000 responses thanks to the efforts of councillors, activists and the Borough’s two Conservative parliamentary candidates. 12. Cameron to give residents council tax veto, The Daily Telegraph, 13 November 2007. 13. Since 2003 the Labour Government has used its powers to stop local authorities increasing tax above a centrally set level, called ‘capping’. 14. Control Shift: Returning Power To Local Communities, Conservative Party Policy Green Paper, 17 February 2009. 15. For more information see: http://www.freezethetax.org.uk

145


balance between council tax levels and the services delivered by the Council. The policy green paper Control Shift states that a Conservative Government will introduce a system that will trigger a local referendum if a local authority proposes a tax increase above the nationwide threshold. This proposal places the taxpayer at the heart of the local tax rate-setting process, providing a clear mandate between the local taxpayer and his Council. This proposal has great potential for Sutton. For too long, Sutton’s taxpayers have been left out of the loop on the rate of local taxation by the political leadership in the Civic Offices.

In this time of economic hardship Sutton Council has the power to do more, and must do more to ease what has become a major strain on household budgets – council tax. We assert that no council budget which takes more money from residents’

pockets in a time of recession can be described as “benign”. We repudiate the spin that low reply rates for council budget consultations indicate a contented population. The reason why Sutton Council’s consultation responses are so pitiful is because the political leadership lacks the drive, ambition and political will to ask residents what they really think about council tax, value for money and the services provided.

The benefits of a Conservative Government are clear for Sutton. The pledge to help local authorities freeze their council tax if they can keep increases below 2.5%, presents enormous potential for a clear break from a high tax past. Continuous Council tax increases in Sutton include a 12% increase in 2003. The Conservatives have found the savings to fund this policy from reduced Government advertising and consultancy budgets.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

£ Increases

Sutton's Council Tax Increases 1993 to Date

Council TaxIncrease(1993=100)

RPI Inflation(1993=100)

Figure 2.

146


The Liberal Democrat leadership in Sutton is addicted to increasing council tax; a Conservative Government would give the Council the opportunity to go ‘cold turkey’. The resistance of Sutton’s Council Leader to the prospect of Conservative plans for tax freezes is well documented.16 It is worth pointing out that this council tax policy is voluntary for local authorities. There is no Labour-style centralised coercion with punishing penalties for non-compliance. This indicates an application of nudge approaches at the highest strategic level of Conservative Party thinking. Councils will be encouraged to reduce local levels of taxation rather than forced into doing so. Provided the political leadership in a local authority has the political will to reduce taxation, a Conservative Government would be poised and ready to help. The benefits from this scenario are clear – a Conservative Council, working with a Conservative Government can freeze Sutton’s council tax for the first time in its history.

That is not to say that the task will be easy, but the present dearth of ambition to ease the burden on residents from the current political leadership is hanging many residents out to dry. Freeing Up Councils: Putting Residents’ Interests First Sutton Council, like all other local authorities, suffers the yoke of ‘statutory duty’ and restricted competence. This means that the power our Council

16. Evening Standard, 1 October 2008.

possesses is a creature of statute. Laws made in Parliament confer powers, or ‘competences’ to local councils. This hinders a local council’s ability to take action in many cases, because the legal system can strike down a council’s undertaking because it is ‘ultra vires’, the legal term for ‘outside its remit’ or ‘beyond its powers’. As Control Shift puts it: “[I]f a local council – in response to local people – wants to take action to address a specific local problem, it may not be able to do so, simply because it has no specific statutory power to take the action in question. ”17 Councils simply cannot take the action which residents may overwhelmingly require of it because of legal rigidity. While accepting that the rule of law is the cornerstone of a functioning 21st Century democracy, and that ad hoc law is the hallmark of tyranny, we must make the case that the current legal relationship between the Government and local government is deeply flawed. We have made the case in the planning section of the Transport, Planning and The Environment chapter to this report that numerous hindrances in our law, common law and statute, have given rise to an exceptionally neutered role for local councillors in many areas of local governance, often in areas that have strong demand from residents for more operative competence. But it is not solely legislative flaws that create handcuffs to competences in local government, it is the policy orientation and the political outlook of the Government and – perhaps just as importantly – local councils themselves.

147


It is too often the case that the political leadership of local councils – Sutton being one – is too scared of its own shadow when it comes to taking action for local residents. The administration revel in their Four Star status, take immense comfort from it and then think that the job of local government is done. The Conservative Party has made clear its intention to remove the shackles from local councils and this will include giving them a ‘general power of competence’ – the ability to get the job of delivering for residents done, without the constant fear of ultra vires accusations. This means that as long as it is lawful a local council can do it.18 If a remote and unaccountable quango to top all quangos is happy (the Audit Commission), then the Liberal Democrat Leader of Sutton Council is happy. He, and his colleagues, are content. They have done their job in their minds.

This is not the hallmark of good local governance. It is a symptom of the detached and otherworldly culture of the Council’s leadership, undeniably well meaning but ineffective.

The Conservative outlook is not focused on slavish compliance to the Audit Commission’s latest whim. It is about removing the handcuffs, both imposed and self-imposed, on local government to deliver what councillors are elected to do.

The Liberal Democrat leadership have bought into the culture of compliance and reject any assertion that their Four Stars are not reflective of real service delivery or efficiency. Instead, they seem to unwittingly echo the feeble rationalisation employed by Labour Ministers for the target driven quango compliance culture. They work in reverse by suggesting that their Four Stars are proof enough that services have improved, but that they just need better communication to tell people.19 The doting attention given to the Audit Commission by the leadership of Sutton Council is ironic given the Liberal Democrat Deputy Leader and Treasury spokesman Dr Vince Cable’s now well documented disdain for the organisation. Dr Cable has called for the organisation to be disbanded and that making councils “compete for stars from an unelected quango” was “disrespectful” and “utterly perverse.”20 We could not agree more with Dr Cable in this regard, but what of his party colleagues on Sutton Council? 21 When it comes to using initiative and doing things independently, Conservative Councils like Westminster City Council, Surrey County Council and Kent County Council have strengthened their individual ward councillors through devolved budgets. Kent, for example, gives each councillor £10,000 to whom any local voluntary community group can apply for funding.22

18. Ibid, p.15. 19. Bundred’s blind belief, John Seddon, The Guardian, Thursday 7 July 2009. 20. Cable slams star rating assessments, Local Government Chronicle, 2 July 2009. 21. This would not be the first time that the local Liberal Democrat leadership would find themselves in hot water with their senior frontbench. The Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, Liberal Democrat Treasury Lords spokesman asked question [HL4580] in the House of Lords on Tuesday 15 July 2008, in which he slammed councils who invested in Icelandic Banks prior to the collapse of Heritable Bank, the United Kingdom subsidiary of Landsbanki 22. Member Community Grant Scheme, see guidance: http://www.kent.gov.uk/NR/rdonlyres/D29F3679-BBF8-4127-A758-3DEE49250D9A/22482/GRANTSnotesandapplicationform09version3.pdf. .

148


Sutton Council’s leadership talks the talk when it comes to localism through the use of Local Committees (a step in the right direction) but could give them stronger devolved budgets to deliver for their neighbourhoods. Conservative Councils have put their money where their mouth is. They are backing up their localist credentials with cash. We see this as a refreshing approach in tackling the Borough of Contradictions. Voluntary Sector In several chapters of this report we have argued for what is called the post-bureaucratic approach; breaking with the fundamental conceit that local government institutions are the universal key to tackling the issues that matter to residents. This conceit is both spoken and unspoken. In Youth Provision, Health and Leisure we have voiced our exasperation at the lack of trust in voluntary youth organisations to use their expertise in working with young people. The benefits of this are clear, but cultural barriers are obstructing this fruitful avenue. The consequence of this is that the in-house provision of youth services simply is not effective. A mixture of centralising conceit, meshed together with risk aversion and spliced with a quick hit short-term ethos has hampered the effectiveness of a service which has exceptional potential for long-term, life-changing youth services for the Borough’s young people. This risk aversion is also very costly. Take the Sutton Life Centre for example. This

controversial pet project is due to cost £8.5million. This is the kind of money that voluntary sector groups in Sutton, who make the very most of shoestring budgets, can only dream of. Similarly in our chapter on adult social services, Transforming The Hidden Service That Can Affect Everyone, we argue that the Council’s leadership must look at what more it can do to help the voluntary sector in assisting in the delivery of the transformation agenda in the area. This agenda, like youth provision, has long-term life-changing significance for so many Sutton residents. Voluntary endeavour, in our view, has a role to play in environmental community-led action, as outlined in Transport, Planning and The Environment. Community recycling schemes have worked in the past but no longer seem interesting to the Council leadership. We have briefly mentioned the scheme in Kent, called the Member Community Grant scheme. The Council’s only stipulation is that applications must show community benefit potential and to hold a bank account. It has benefited groups in the county to the tune of £3million to date through its no-strings-attached approach. Examples of projects which have benefited include the establishment of a youth club, outdoor education projects for disaffected youths, and a voluntary carers’ group. Individual councillors retain the strong link to the community that they are supporting. Our voluntary sector forms the beating heart of public life in Sutton. It is a credit to the entire Borough. The many groups, behind the scenes and rarely in the

149


limelight, have tremendous amounts to give in terms of time, enthusiasm, and experience.

We could do so much more to become a facilitating Council rather than a distant, even untrusting, acquaintance. More Than Just Words: Value for Money Spending in Sutton has expanded continuously over the 23 year period that the Liberal Democrats have been in control. Stark differences between different London Councils who are distinct in their attitude to public finances and local governance, can be illustrated by Conservative-controlled Hammersmith and Fulham. No one leads the way in lowering council spending and delivering value for money quite like Hammersmith and Fulham. The Conservatives have taken a high-tax local authority, riddled with debt, to go on to cut council tax by 3% two years in a row while delivering improved services to residents. This is reflected in a doubling of the resident satisfaction rate. They are delivering value for money by spending £4million over two years to pay for round- the-clock beat policing in town centres and investing more in schools and adult social care services. Unlike Sutton they are unafraid to embrace market forces and to commit to market testing council services. The commitment to competitive compulsory tendering by Hammersmith and Fulham’s leadership to the tune of £90million (equal to half of their overall budget), is predicted to yield £5million worth of efficiency savings.23 .They also

differ from Sutton by sharing the rewards of good management by easing the tax burden. The administration in Hammersmith and Fulham has used smarter working to save nearly half a million pounds. They have gained £4million in savings from their award-winning service called Customer Access Strategy, while simultaneously improving it. Despite a multiplicity of budgetary pressures being imposed on local government, the administration in Hammersmith and Fulham has reduced actual spending by £7million. The Council’s debt has been lowered by £20million, freeing up more money to spend on services. When setting the council budget for 2009-10, the Liberal Democrats had the power to freeze and even cut council tax because they had accumulated reserves of £11million.24 Conservatives argued, given the increasingly gloomy financial climate in a worsening recession, that this was the right thing to do. The kind of relentless and imaginative push for value for money in Hammersmith and Fulham has delivered real financial benefits to residents living in that Borough. Despite differences in the level of Government grants between Sutton and Hammersmith and Fulham their example shows us that reductions can be achieved. In Sutton, value for money should be more than just words. It should be a reality for residents.

23. The New Good Council Guide Part One, Councillor Stephen Greenhalgh, Centre for Policy Studies, September 2008, p. 11. 24. The £11,140,000 fund, marked as "Amount of General Fund Balance generally available for new expenditure," in the Sutton Council Statement of Accounts 2007/08, page 11.

150


Conclusion Sutton Council’s political leadership suffers from the terminal political malady of believing its own spin. They believe that they listen to residents. They believe that they are a value for money administration. They believe that tax increases that have relentlessly risen above RPI are acceptable. And, disturbingly, they believe that consulting 0.04% of the Borough’s population is an adequate sample of public opinion to set a level of council tax which impacts on 100% of the Sutton residents.

It would be churlish and unfair to say that the Council’s leadership are not well-meaning, but we argue that their cultural approach to local government represents a disconnect with the people of the Borough. The rot that has caused this gulf between the people on the street and the ruling Liberal Democrat politicians in the Civic Offices is attributable to ideology rather than individuals. A distinct version of Liberal Democrat politics has evolved in the climate of our Borough.

It is an ideological framework which sees the public purse as a legitimate plaything; an inexhaustible source of experimental income, with the latest fad being the Sutton Life Centre. The constant drive which the Council leadership shows towards attracting attention via the dreaded buzzword of ‘innovation’25 means that the taxpayer, more often than not, has to pick up the bill. The ideology favours the ‘tried and tested’ in the areas of traditional council service provision, as well as expensive but ‘safe’ partnership projects. These projects are the polar opposite to the market-based practices which we have highlighted in Hammersmith and Fulham as an example of how a council really can cut costs and make value for money more than a myth, but a reality. This brings us to the unhappy conclusion that Sutton Council’s leadership is inherently ideologically wed to practices which are innately high cost. Hard pressed taxpayers are footing the bill. It does not have to be this way though. There is an alternative and it will come about through fresh thinking and an honest appraisal of our Borough in terms of where the Council’s efforts have brought about beneficial change and where it has not. Adult social services is a core example of how the Council has done the right thing by embracing the transformation agenda. But in other areas, for example, education, the Council administration’s efforts in supporting our grammar schools in delivering superlative results lacks even the slightest trace element of political support. Moreover, we have provided

25. We put the view that ‘innovative’ in the Liberal Democrat ideological lexicon in the Sutton context represents ‘expensive’.

This brings us to the unhappy conclusion that

Sutton Council’s leadership is inherently

ideologically wed to practices which are

innately high cost. Hard pressed taxpayers are

footing the bill.

151


evidence to the contrary in our chapter Opening the Door of Opportunity to Local Children.

Sutton is riddled with contradictions, some worse than others, but with some requiring urgent attention – in particular, the deplorable state of our council housing stock and the passivity of the Council in the face of the ever present threat to our suburban realm from developers. The final contradiction is that Sutton is a nice place to live but it could and should be so much better. This will be achieved by learning from the mistakes of the past and those of the present and changing Sutton from being a Borough of Contradictions to a Borough of Fulfilled Potential.

There is an alternative and it will come about through fresh-thinking

and an honest appraisal of our Borough.

152


The State of Sutton: A Borough of Contradictions

The London Borough of Sutton is spending £437 million of taxpayers’ money in 2009-10. Like the proverbial iceberg, many of the services are not always visible. Many services affect everyone, others affect the most vulnerable in our society. Either way, they matter, contributing to the quality of life of every resident in Sutton. The State of Sutton: A Borough of Contradictions is one part of a once in a generation opportunity to conduct a thorough investigation of the relationship between Sutton Council, other service providers and residents. The authors have listened to experts, politicians and residents. This is the only way to achieve the balance between a range of priorities while ensuring no-one is left behind. All but one preconceived idea were kept out of the investigation; one of the few rules that we are not prepared to be diverted from is that we must always achieve the very best value for money, making the most of every penny of tax and council income spent in the Borough. As the Borough changes, we want residents to help manage that process ensuring that they continue to live in a place that represents their views and aspirations and one that reflects their concerns. This report is the first step in renewing the connection between politicians and residents. It is the first move in starting the debate about the changes needed in Sutton.

www.changesutton.org.uk

Documents

State of Sutton - A Borough of Contradictions