Post on 26-Jan-2023
For enquiries on this agenda please contact: Wendy Windmill, 020 8547 5020 (Fax: 020 8547 5125) e.mail: wendy.windmill@rbk.kingston.gov.uk This agenda is available on www.kingston.gov.uk/council/CommitteeMinutes 12 March 2007
EXECUTIVE
The EXECUTIVE will meet at THE GUILDHALL, HIGH STREET, KINGSTON UPON
THAMES on TUESDAY 20 MARCH 2007 at 7:30 pm
Councillor Derek Osbourne (Chair) - Leader of the Council Councillor Patricia Bamford - Children and Young People’s Services Councillor Rolson Davies - Health and Community Councillor Simon James - Transport, Planning and Regeneration Councillor Ian Reid - Improvement and Performance Councillor Liz Shard - Sustainability and Biodiversity Councillor Penny Shelton - Housing and Adult Services
EMERGENCY EVACUATION ARRANGEMENTS On hearing the alarm, which is a loud siren, please leave the building by the nearest available fire exit and assemble by the triangle at the front of the Guildhall. Anyone requiring assistance to evacuate the building should proceed to the refuge areas which are situated outside Committee Room 1 and the Mayor’s Parlour where they will be met by a member of the building management team and assisted from the building. QUESTION TIME
From 7.30 pm, for up to thirty minutes, members of the public may put questions to the Executive and officers relating to the functions and responsibilities of the Executive. The questions may be sent in writing by e mail or fax before the meeting or handed in at the start of the meeting on the form provided. For enquiries please contact Wendy Windmill, 020 8547 5020 (Fax: 020 8547 5125) e.mail: wendy.windmill@rbk.kingston.gov.uk The questions will be considered in the order of their receipt. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Contributions from members of the Authority and from members of the public can be made on items which appear on the Executive agenda. A place is reserved for members of the public wishing to address the Executive. When their contributions are completed, they shall retire to the public gallery. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Members of the Executive are invited to identify any personal or prejudicial interests relevant to items on this agenda.
2
APOLOGIES FOR ABSENCE EXECUTIVE MEMBERS’ INFORMATION ROUND-UP CHIEF EXECUTIVE’S and DIRECTORS’ UPDATES MINUTES To approve as a correct record the minutes of the previous meeting.
1. GRANTS TO VOLUNTARY ORGANISATIONS: PROJECT
GRANTS 2007/08 Appendix A
2. ANNUAL AUDIT AND INSPECTION LETTER FOR THE ROYAL
BOROUGH OF KINGSTON UPON THAMES - AUDIT 2005/06
Copies of the Letter were circulated to all Members of the Council as Appendix A to the agenda for the Audit Committee’s meeting of 13 March 2007. Please bring the Letter to the meeting. Mr Hamid Khan, the Audit Manager from the Audit Commission will attend the meeting to present the Letter.
3. COMPREHENSIVE PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT - INSPECTION OUTCOMES
(a) FIT FOR THE FUTURE – LEARNING FROM CORPORATE
ASSESSMENT
Appendix B
(b) ACTION PLAN IN RESPONSE TO THE JOINT AREA REVIEW
AND ENHANCED YOUTH SERVICE INSPECTION
Appendix C
4. LOCAL AREA AGREEMENT Appendix D 5. CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY STRATEGY Appendix E 6. GREEN SPACES STRATEGY Appendix F 7. REVIEW OF THE ROLES AND FUNCTIONS OF
NEIGHBOURHOOD COMMITTEES Appendix G
8. ADMISSION ARRANGEMENTS FOR COMMUNITY SCHOOLS
FOR SEPTEMBER 2008 Appendix H
9. LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK: LOCAL DEVELOPMENT
SCHEME AND MEMBER STEERING GROUP Appendix I
10. SAVING UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES Appendix J 11. NON DOMESTIC RATES – DISCRETIONARY RATE RELIEF Appendix K 12. COUNCIL TAX LOCAL DISCOUNTS Appendix L
3
13. LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN (LIP) FUNDING 2007- 2008
ALLOCATION OF BIDS Appendix M
14. BUDGET MONITORING 2006/07 – MONTH 10 Appendix N 15. IRRECOVERABLE DEBTS FOR WRITE OFF Appendix O 16. RETIREMENT AND STAFFING REDUCTIONS POLICIES Appendix P 17. URGENT ITEMS AUTHORISED BY THE CHAIR 18. EXCLUSION OF PRESS AND PUBLIC
The following reports contain exempt information in relation to reports set out in the non-exempt section of the agenda. These matters may be considered in private if the Executive agrees that, under Section 100(A)(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the public are excluded from the meeting on the grounds that it is likely that exempt information, as defined in the paragraphs 1 and 3 of Part I of Schedule 12A to the Act, would be disclosed. This paragraph covers information about the financial or business affairs of any particular person. IRRECOVERABLE DEBTS FOR WRITE OFF – Annex 1 to Appendix O RETIREMENT AND STAFFING REDUCTIONS POLICIES – Annex 1 to Appendix P
APPENDIX A
Executive, 20 March 2007
GRANTS TO VOLUNTARY ORGANISATIONS: PROJECT GRANTS 2007/08 Report by the Head of Democratic Services and Partnership Executive Member for Health and Community
Purpose This report presents the details of applications from voluntary organisations for Project grants in 2007/08 for consideration. Action proposed by the Executive Member for Health and Community: The Executive is requested to: agree the amount of grant aid to be offered to the voluntary organisations for 2007/08 as set out in the report. Reason for action proposed So that decisions can be made on applications for grant aid from voluntary organisations. BACKGROUND 1. Following the Review of Grant making carried out in 2002, the Council adopted a
new approach to the funding of voluntary organisations for 2003/04 and beyond, as follows:
• One corporate grants budget rather than a number of Directorate based
budgets; • Strategic three year funding for key local organisations extended; • resources targeted at services and activities that reflect the Council’s priorities; • support to continue to be given for annual project work; and • the grant making process to encourage and spread good practice In 2006, it was agreed that the Grants and Awards Panel would be discontinued and strategic and project grants would be considered by the Executive.
APPLICATIONS FOR 2007/08 2. The following applications have been received:
23 applications for strategic funding (total bid £808,813) 45 project applications (total bid £128,834), and 34 small grant applications (total bid £20,647)
A2
Total: 102 applications totalling £958,294. A further £465,731 is committed for 19 three year strategic grants making a total bid of £1,424,025.
3. The process for considering these applications is as follows:
Executive Meeting 23 January 2007 Strategic grant Applications 13 February 2007 Project grant applications 20 March 2007 Project grant applications
4. Project Grants are annual grants of between £750 and £3,000 which are for one-
off projects/events or running costs, although organisations are encouraged not to become dependent on funding from the Council in the long term. The following is a summary of Council priorities and applications are expected to meet one or more of these.
General Priorities: • Projects which promote social inclusion – accessible services/activities,
particularly for people with disabilities and disadvantaged groups. • Projects which develop services and activities that will meet the needs of the
most vulnerable members of society. • Projects which promote cultural diversity in the Borough and provide a wide
range of cultural activities. • Projects which raise awareness about the environment and healthy living.
Sports Priorities: 1) Promote out of school physical activity for young people. 2) Increase access to physical activity opportunities for adults, families and people
with disabilities. 3) Improve the range and quality of sports and recreation activities and venues
where there are limited sports and recreation opportunities for children.
Arts Priorities: 1) Provide opportunities for young people, aged 11-18, to enjoy and participate in
high quality arts events or projects. Applicants will be expected to explain how they will involve young people in the planning of such events and how they will be evaluated. Preference will be given to projects that target young people who have relatively few opportunities to engage with the arts and, ideally, that can in part be enjoyed by the wider community.
2) Provide opportunities for people to enjoy artistic events of a high quality, especially those that are promoted in a way that makes them as accessible as possible (such events are likely to have a professional element, although work of a professional standard would satisfy this criterion even if it was not provided on a fully professional basis).
3) Provide good quality arts projects and events that meet the needs of people who, for whatever reason, may not be able to take advantage of “mainstream” provision.
4) Contribute to improved access to arts venues and spaces through physical improvements, signage and information.
5) Contribute to the development of schemes that enable artists and creative people to have their professional base and premises in the Borough.
A3
Play Priorities: Applications for projects related to children’s play should meet both of the following criteria: 1) Actively work towards including children: with disabilities and special needs, with
English as an additional language, with anti-social behaviour, from low income families, from refugee families or children displaying challenging behaviour.
2) Be able to show that they have either already had success in this work or, if not, an action plan to show how they plan to include these children in their groups in the future.
In addition we are unlikely to fund any group for play activity if they are not registered, or in the process of registering, with Ofsted (if they are able to be).
Youth Priorities: 1) Provide positive activity programmes for vulnerable young people. 2) Provide informal learning activities to enable young people to gain recorded and
accredited outcomes. 3) Provide opportunities for young people to participate in, and influence, decision
making at local and national level. • Note: ‘young people’ are considered by the Youth Service to be those aged 13-
19
Environmental Priorities: Applications for environmental projects should meet all three of the following criteria: 1) Increase environmental knowledge and understanding. 2) Address one or more of the following aims:
• reduce waste and increase recycling • save energy, promote alternative and renewable energy, and cut emissions of
Carbon Dioxide • reduce the need to travel and promote the use of public transport, cycling and
walking • cut pollution and encourage improvements to the quality of air, water and land • maintain or improve natural resources through conservation and sustainable
consumption • protect and enhance biodiversity and the natural environment • involve the community in environmental action
3) Be compatible with the aims of Sustainable Development, which brings together: • environmental protection and enhancement , • quality of life – both material wealth and social and cultural well-being, • providing for the future, • equity and fairness – between individuals, generations and countries
5. 45 applications were received for project funding for 2007/08 with grant requests
totalling £128,834. One organisation, which applied for a strategic grant has been referred for consideration as a project grant.
A4
6. The grants in this report are in the following categories • Sports • Arts • Play • Youth • Environment
Applications for grants in the categories of Social Welfare, Community Language and Culture and Tourism and Events were considered at the Executive meeting on 13th February 2007 and £30,320 was committed.
BUDGET FOR 2007/08 7. The total budget for 2007/08 is £1,084,300, which includes a 2% uplift for inflation.
19 organisations are on three year funding and the commitment to these organisations is £465,731.
8. A total of £1,054,696 has been committed to strategic and development applications at the Executive meeting held on 23rd January. A figure of £29,604 would then have remained in the budget for allocation to the 45 project applications and 34 small grant applications (total bid £149,481). As this figure would have been a significant reduction in the budget available for project and small grants, the grants budget has been increased by £40,000. If £10,000 is set aside for small grants, a sum of £59,604 will therefore be available for project grants.
9. In addition, in line with the policy programme to invest in environmental projects, a
further £10,000 is earmarked for environmental projects and £15,000 of the budget set aside for the Community Furniture Project is being added to that amount, making a total of £25,000. The Community Furniture project is unlikely to require its full allocation in 2007/08 because of increases in income and grants carried over.
SUMMARY OF APPLICATIONS 10. The summary of applications for project grants is included at Annex 2. Details of
grant aid applications which the Executive is required to approve, are provided in Annex 1.
STATUTORY POWERS FOR GRANT MAKING 11. Grant-aid for the grants contained in this report may be authorised under the
following Local Government Acts:
• Section 19 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 gives local authorities power to provide premises for the use of clubs or societies having athletic, social or recreational objectives; to make recreational facilities available free or at reduced charges to such people as they think fit and to make grants or loans to help voluntary bodies provide recreational facilities of a kind which the local authorities have power to provide. This covers recreational facilities inside and outside of the local authority.
• Section 145 of the Local Government Act 1972, relating to the provision of
entertainment, which gives local authorities the power to contribute towards the expenses of anything necessary or expedient for the provision of entertainment of
A5
any nature, and for the development and improvement of the Council’s understanding and practice of the arts.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS 12. There are potential environmental benefits from encouraging voluntary
organisations to adopt good environmental practice. The grant recommended in the Environment category will support environmental education and awareness of young people.
TIMESCALE 13. When decisions have been made on the allocation of grants to individual voluntary
organisations, the organisations will be informed. The grant payments will be made after 1 April 2007.
Background Papers Author of the Report - Gillian Pennington (020 8547 6072) and Barnaby Hopson (020 8547 6068) • Applications from the voluntary organisations • Full reports on each organisation’s application Held by Kingston Voluntary Sector Unit (020 8547 6068/6072)
A6
Gra
nt A
id -
Pro
ject
App
licat
ions
200
7/08
AN
NE
X 1
Org
anis
atio
nD
etai
lsA
pplic
atio
n fo
r 200
7/08
Gra
nt
06/0
7R
ecom
men
datio
n 20
07/0
8
SPO
RTS
Avo
ndal
e G
ymna
stic
s C
lub
This
clu
b pr
ovid
es g
ymna
stic
s co
achi
ng
for o
ver 4
00 y
oung
peo
ple
of a
ll ag
es
from
bas
ic to
nat
iona
l lev
els.
£1,0
00To
con
tribu
te to
war
ds th
e co
sts
of
a tu
mbl
e tra
ck to
hel
p w
ith
gym
nast
ics
train
ing.
n/a
£1,0
00Th
is w
ill b
e a
usef
ul n
ew p
iece
of
equi
pmen
t tha
t will
impr
ove
the
safe
ty a
nd
deve
lopm
ent o
f the
you
ng g
ymna
sts.
Sp
ecia
l Con
ditio
ns:
see
belo
w*
Mal
den
Wan
dere
rs
Cric
ket C
lub
The
club
pro
vide
s cr
icke
t coa
chin
g an
d co
mpe
titiv
e ga
mes
for p
eopl
e of
all
ages
.£3
,000
Tow
ards
the
cost
of c
ricke
t co
achi
ng in
volv
ing
200
girls
and
bo
ys.
£2,0
00£1
,500
RB
K h
as p
rovi
ded
tape
red
fund
ing
for t
his
coac
hing
for t
he la
st th
ree
year
s, o
ne
furth
er c
ontri
butio
n is
reco
mm
ende
d.
Spec
ial C
ondi
tions
: see
bel
ow*
Spa
rtan
Sw
imm
ing
Clu
b fo
r Phy
sica
lly
Dis
able
d
Spa
rtan
Sw
imm
ing
Clu
b pr
ovid
es
spec
ialis
ed s
wim
min
g in
stru
ctio
n an
d w
ater
enj
oym
ent f
or a
nyon
e w
ho h
as a
ph
ysic
al d
isab
ility
and
has
65
mem
bers
.
£3,5
00To
pay
for a
nnua
l poo
l hire
of t
he
Mal
den
Cen
tre.
£3,5
00£3
,000
The
max
imum
gra
nt o
f £3,
000
is
reco
mm
ende
d to
cov
er th
e co
st o
f poo
l hi
re. S
peci
al C
ondi
tions
: 1) T
he c
lub
to
wor
k w
ith th
e C
omm
unity
Spo
rts C
oach
for
Dis
able
d pe
ople
to e
ncou
rage
mor
e yo
ung
disa
bled
sw
imm
ers
to jo
in th
e cl
ub. 2
) see
be
low
*Fr
iend
s of
Tol
wor
th
Gym
nast
ics
Clu
bTh
is c
lub
prov
ides
gym
nast
ics
coac
hing
fo
r you
ng p
eopl
e, in
clud
ing
thos
e w
ith
spec
ial n
eeds
, fro
m b
asic
to n
atio
nal
leve
ls. T
hey
have
ove
r 850
use
rs.
£3,0
00To
con
tribu
te to
war
ds th
e co
st o
f ne
w s
afet
y m
attin
g th
at w
ill b
e of
pa
rticu
lar b
enef
it to
use
rs w
ith
disa
bilit
ies.
£2,0
00
(aw
arde
d in
20
05/0
6)
£2,0
00A
con
tribu
tion
is re
com
men
ded
beca
use
repl
acem
ent s
afet
y m
ats
wou
ld e
nabl
e be
tter p
rovi
sion
and
saf
ety
for s
peci
al
need
s ch
ildre
n. S
peci
al C
ondi
tions
: see
be
low
*To
lwor
th Y
outh
B
owlin
g C
lub
This
clu
b or
gani
ses
a w
eekl
y te
n pi
n bo
wlin
g le
ague
and
pro
vide
s co
achi
ng
for 7
0 yo
ung
bow
lers
at t
he C
harr
ingt
on
Bow
l in
Tolw
orth
.
£3,0
00To
war
ds th
e co
st o
f coa
chin
g ai
ds,
atte
ndin
g to
urna
men
ts a
nd
bow
ling
equi
pmen
t for
ver
y yo
ung
bow
lers
.
n/a
£0B
owlin
g is
not
a p
riorit
y sp
ort f
or th
e C
ounc
il an
d it
wou
ld b
e m
ore
appr
opria
te
for t
his
grou
p to
con
side
r app
lyin
g fo
r a
Nei
ghbo
urho
od G
rant
in th
e fu
ture
.£1
3,50
0£7
,500
*Spe
cial
Con
ditio
ns: A
ll or
gani
satio
ns in
re
ceip
t of a
Cou
ncil
gran
t for
spo
rting
ac
tiviti
es a
re e
xpec
ted
to p
artic
ipat
e in
the
Kin
gsto
n Fe
stiv
al o
f Spo
rt as
wel
l as
the
Lond
on Y
outh
Gam
es.
A7
Gra
nt A
id -
Pro
ject
App
licat
ions
200
7/08
AN
NE
X 1
Org
anis
atio
nD
etai
lsA
pplic
atio
n fo
r 200
7/08
Gra
nt
06/0
7R
ecom
men
datio
n 20
07/0
8
AR
TSG
reen
The
atre
C
ompa
nyTh
is th
eatre
com
pany
cre
ates
op
portu
nitie
s fo
r you
ng p
eopl
e to
pa
rtici
pate
in a
ll as
pect
s of
thea
tre,
incl
udin
g pe
rform
ing,
writ
ing,
dire
ctin
g,
tech
nica
l des
ign
and
oper
atio
n. T
hey
have
45
mem
bers
and
put
on
5-7
prod
uctio
ns a
yea
r with
typi
cal a
udie
nces
of
50.
£3,0
00To
war
ds th
e co
st o
f bui
ldin
g m
aint
enan
ce.
£1,0
00£2
,000
The
orga
nisa
tion
wor
ks h
ard
to m
aint
ain
its
prem
ises
, whi
ch a
re le
ased
from
the
Cou
ncil,
and
it is
reco
mm
ende
d th
at a
co
ntrib
utio
n be
mad
e. S
peci
al C
ondi
tion:
1)
a fu
ndra
isin
g an
d bu
sine
ss p
lan
to b
e su
bmitt
ed 2
) quo
tes
for a
ll bu
ildin
g w
ork
to
be s
ubm
itted
prio
r to
any
gran
t pay
men
t.
ITC
Fin
e A
rtsIT
C (I
nstit
ute
of T
amil
Cul
ture
) Fin
e A
rts
prom
otes
aw
aren
ess,
app
reci
atio
n an
d un
ders
tand
ing
of S
outh
Asi
an D
ance
and
re
late
d pe
rform
ing
arts
. The
y or
gani
se
wor
ksho
ps fo
r you
ng p
eopl
e an
d st
age
mul
ti-cu
ltura
l con
certs
with
aud
ienc
es o
f up
to 6
00.
£1,3
20To
war
ds th
e co
st o
f hiri
ng
prem
ises
for r
ehea
rsal
s an
d a
final
pe
rform
ance
for t
heir
2007
pr
ogra
mm
e in
volv
ing
80 y
oung
pe
ople
.
£1,0
00£1
,000
The
orga
nisa
tion
has
a go
od tr
ack
reco
rd o
f pu
tting
on
high
qua
lity
perfo
rman
ces.
Kin
gsto
n A
rts
Ass
ocia
tion
KA
A s
uppo
rts th
e K
ings
ton
Mus
ic a
nd
Arts
Ser
vice
. Org
anis
atio
ns th
at c
ome
unde
r its
um
brel
la a
re th
e K
ings
ton
You
th C
once
rt B
and
and
Kin
gsto
n P
rimar
y S
choo
ls M
usic
Ass
ocia
tion
£3,0
00To
war
ds th
e co
st o
f six
mus
ic,
danc
e an
d dr
ama
fest
ival
s fo
r K
ings
ton
scho
ols
invo
lvin
g 2,
000
youn
g pe
ople
and
46
scho
ols.
£2,2
50
(aw
arde
d in
20
05/0
6)
£0It
is c
onsi
dere
d in
appr
opria
te fo
r a C
ounc
il se
rvic
e to
app
ly fo
r fun
ding
for a
n ac
tivity
th
at it
dire
ctly
pro
vide
s an
d th
ese
fest
ival
s sh
ould
be
self
finan
cing
.
Loki
Mus
icLO
KI o
rgan
ises
mus
ic c
once
rts a
nd
wor
ksho
ps a
bout
mus
ic fr
om d
iffer
ent
hist
oric
al p
erio
ds a
nd c
ultu
res.
£3,0
00To
war
ds th
e K
ings
ton
Ear
ly M
usic
Fe
stiv
al in
200
7.
£2,0
00
(pai
d vi
a K
ings
ton
Arts
C
ounc
il)
£0A
n in
com
plet
e ap
plic
atio
n fro
m a
n or
gani
satio
n th
at h
as n
ot y
et a
ddre
ssed
the
conc
erns
rais
ed la
st y
ear.
A8
Gra
nt A
id -
Pro
ject
App
licat
ions
200
7/08
AN
NE
X 1
Org
anis
atio
nD
etai
lsA
pplic
atio
n fo
r 200
7/08
Gra
nt
06/0
7R
ecom
men
datio
n 20
07/0
8
Ora
nge
Tree
The
atre
The
Ora
nge
Tree
pro
vide
s a
year
roun
d pr
ogra
mm
e of
pro
fess
iona
l the
atre
, as
wel
l as
com
mun
ity a
nd e
duca
tion
prog
ram
mes
with
wor
ksho
ps a
nd
proj
ects
for y
oung
peo
ple.
£2,0
00To
war
ds a
wee
k lo
ng P
rimar
y S
choo
l Sha
kesp
eare
resi
denc
y pr
ogra
mm
e in
Jan
uary
200
8. T
his
will
invo
lve
100
youn
g pe
ople
from
fo
ur K
ings
ton
prim
ary
scho
ols.
£0
(200
6/07
), £
1,00
0 (2
005/
06)
£1,0
00Th
is p
roje
ct w
ould
link
in w
ith th
e R
ose
of
Kin
gsto
n’s
educ
atio
n an
d ou
treac
h pr
ogra
mm
e bu
t a re
duce
d am
ount
is
reco
mm
ende
d as
sch
ools
cou
ld b
e ex
pect
ed to
con
tribu
te m
ore.
Spe
cial
C
ondi
tion:
The
thea
tre is
to li
aise
with
K
MA
S, R
BK
's P
rinci
pal A
rts O
ffice
r, th
e R
ose
of K
ings
ton
and
the
loca
l sch
ools
cl
uste
r.S
ahel
iS
ahel
i is
a gr
oup
for
Asi
an w
omen
. It
orga
nise
s m
eetin
gs a
nd d
iscu
ssio
n ev
enin
gs, o
utin
gs a
nd c
ultu
ral e
vent
s w
ith th
e ai
m o
f com
batin
g is
olat
ion
for
wom
en in
the
Asi
an c
omm
unity
. The
y ha
ve 2
20 m
embe
rs.
£3,0
00To
war
ds th
eir p
rogr
amm
e of
ac
tiviti
es in
200
7/08
.£1
,000
£1,0
00Th
e gr
oup
cont
ribut
e to
the
cultu
ral l
ife o
f th
e bo
roug
h an
d a
gra
nt th
e sa
me
as la
st
year
is re
com
men
ded.
Spe
cial
Con
ditio
n:
Sah
eli a
re to
mak
e us
e of
KV
A’s
free
CaS
H
serv
ice
to re
view
the
way
they
pre
sent
thei
r ac
coun
ts.
Sak
oba
Dan
ce fo
r All
Sak
oba
Dan
ce T
heat
re ru
n ‘p
ost-m
oder
n’
Afri
can
danc
e w
orks
hops
and
put
on
perfo
rman
ces
at lo
cal s
choo
ls.
£3,0
00To
war
ds th
e co
st o
f dan
ce
wor
ksho
ps in
volv
ing
120
youn
g pe
ople
from
four
Kin
gsto
n sc
hool
s.
£2,3
00£2
,000
The
grou
p ha
s an
exc
elle
nt tr
ack
reco
rd o
f hi
gh q
ualit
y w
ork
in th
e bo
roug
h an
d a
cont
ribut
ion
to th
ese
wor
ksho
ps is
re
com
men
ded.
Spe
cial
Con
ditio
n:
Bre
akdo
wn
of th
e pr
ojec
ts a
ctua
l inc
ome
and
expe
nditu
re to
be
supp
lied
once
the
activ
ity h
as ta
ken
plac
e.S
arvo
day
Hin
du
Ass
ocia
tion
Sar
voda
y H
indu
Ass
ocia
tion
orga
nise
s so
cial
, cul
tura
l and
relig
ious
act
iviti
es a
nd
prom
otes
the
gene
ral w
elfa
re o
f the
G
ujar
ati s
peak
ing
com
mun
ity.
£3,0
00To
war
ds th
e co
st o
f the
Nav
ratri
fe
stiv
al in
200
7, w
hich
take
s pl
ace
over
nin
e ni
ghts
in O
ctob
er w
ith
audi
ence
s of
300
-1,2
00 p
eopl
e.
£1,2
50£1
,000
This
fest
ival
is v
ery
impo
rtant
to th
e G
uaja
rati
com
mun
ity. H
owev
er, h
all h
ire is
lik
ely
to b
e le
ss th
an b
udge
ted
and
the
grou
p ha
d a
larg
e su
rplu
s la
st y
ear (
year
en
d O
ct '0
5) th
eref
ore
a re
duce
d am
ount
is
reco
mm
ende
d.
A9
Gra
nt A
id -
Pro
ject
App
licat
ions
200
7/08
AN
NE
X 1
Org
anis
atio
nD
etai
lsA
pplic
atio
n fo
r 200
7/08
Gra
nt
06/0
7R
ecom
men
datio
n 20
07/0
8
Sto
nele
igh
You
th
Orc
hest
ra S
ocie
tyTh
e so
ciet
y ru
ns a
mai
n or
ches
tra a
nd a
tra
inin
g or
ches
tra in
volv
ing
a to
tal o
f 81
youn
g m
usic
ians
(17
of w
ho c
ome
from
K
ings
ton)
.
£3,0
00To
war
ds m
usic
al e
quip
men
t and
sc
ores
to h
elp
recr
uit a
nd re
tain
th
eir y
oung
er m
embe
rs, a
ged
10-
12.
£0£0
The
orch
estra
is b
ased
out
side
the
boro
ugh
and
has
limite
d lin
ks w
ith th
e bo
roug
h an
d lo
cal y
oung
peo
ple
can
now
dev
elop
thei
r m
usic
al ta
lent
s w
ith th
e ne
w T
ham
es Y
outh
O
rche
stra
.S
urbi
ton
Roy
al B
ritis
h Le
gion
You
th
Mar
chin
g B
and
This
mar
chin
g ba
nd p
rovi
des
mus
ical
tra
inin
g fo
r the
ir 35
you
ng m
embe
rs a
nd
perfo
rms
at s
ever
al e
vent
s th
roug
hout
th
e ye
ar.
£3,0
00To
war
ds th
e co
st o
f new
in
stru
men
ts, u
nifo
rms,
taba
rds
and
a to
ur to
Ger
man
y
£1,2
50£1
,500
This
is a
n im
porta
nt b
and
that
con
tribu
tes
to
man
y lo
cal e
vent
s. A
con
tribu
tion
is
reco
mm
ende
d to
war
ds in
stru
men
ts a
nd
unifo
rms
as th
is w
ill h
elp
attra
ct a
nd
mai
ntai
n yo
ung
mem
bers
.
Tham
es P
hilh
arm
onic
C
hoir
This
cho
ir or
gani
se p
erfo
rman
ces
of h
igh
qual
ity c
hora
l mus
ic.
£2,0
00To
war
ds th
e co
st o
f a
perfo
rman
ce in
Kin
gsto
n P
aris
h C
hurc
h in
Dec
embe
r 200
7.
£1,0
00£1
,250
The
prop
osed
con
cert
will
be
a ve
ry s
peci
al
even
t and
a c
ontri
butio
n is
reco
mm
ende
d.
Spec
ial C
ondi
tions
: The
Cho
ir is
to
dem
onst
rate
wha
t the
y w
ill d
o to
mak
e th
is
conc
ert m
ore
acce
ssib
le to
peo
ple
who
m
ight
not
nor
mal
ly a
ttend
suc
h an
eve
nt.
£29,
320
£10,
750
PLA
Y C
hess
ingt
on K
ids
Clu
b - H
olid
ay C
lub
(Pla
ysch
eme)
Che
ssin
gton
Kid
s C
lub
oper
ates
hol
iday
cl
ubs
each
day
dur
ing
ever
y sc
hool
ho
liday
. C
hild
ren
with
spe
cial
nee
ds a
re
enco
urag
ed to
par
ticip
ate
in th
ese
play
sc
hem
es.
£2,3
78To
war
ds th
e co
st o
f Sup
port
Wor
kers
that
will
ena
ble
them
to
offe
r pla
ces
to fi
ve c
hild
ren
with
sp
ecia
l nee
ds e
ach
day.
£1,7
50£2
,378
An
impr
ovin
g cl
ub w
ith a
'goo
d' O
fste
d ra
ting
that
pro
vide
s in
tegr
ated
pla
y op
portu
nitie
s. S
peci
al C
ondi
tion:
1) T
he
club
is to
pro
duce
one
con
solid
ated
set
of
acco
unts
for t
he w
hole
org
anis
atio
n. 2
) The
cl
ub is
to w
ork
with
the
Cou
ncil's
Out
of
Sch
ool D
evel
opm
ent A
dvis
or.
Kin
gsto
n To
wn
Cen
tre M
anag
emen
t Lt
d
KTC
M’s
mai
n ac
tiviti
es a
re th
e pr
omot
ion,
enh
ance
men
t and
m
anag
emen
t of
Kin
gsto
n To
wn
Cen
tre.
£1,5
00To
war
ds th
e co
st o
f the
Thu
mbs
U
p It
Thur
sday
pla
ysch
eme
that
ta
kes
plac
e ea
ch T
hurs
day
over
th
e su
mm
er h
olid
ays.
£1,2
50£1
,500
This
is a
pop
ular
and
var
ied
activ
ity th
at is
w
ell a
ttend
ed a
nd th
e re
ques
t is
supp
orte
d.
A10
Gra
nt A
id -
Pro
ject
App
licat
ions
200
7/08
AN
NE
X 1
Org
anis
atio
nD
etai
lsA
pplic
atio
n fo
r 200
7/08
Gra
nt
06/0
7R
ecom
men
datio
n 20
07/0
8
Ref
ugee
Act
ion
Kin
gsto
nR
AK
offe
rs s
uppo
rt, a
dvic
e an
d in
form
atio
n to
refu
gees
livi
ng in
the
Bor
ough
. It
also
aim
s to
rais
e th
e aw
aren
ess
of th
e pu
blic
of t
he n
eeds
of
refu
gees
.
£1,5
00To
war
ds th
e co
st o
f the
free
su
mm
er p
lays
chem
e in
Aug
ust
that
will
invo
lve
30 c
hild
ren
from
ne
wly
arr
ived
refu
gee
fam
ilies
.
£1,5
00
(plu
s S
trate
gic
Gra
nt o
f £4
1,88
9 in
06/
07)
£1,5
00Th
is is
a w
ell e
stab
lishe
d sc
hem
e th
at h
elps
ne
wly
arr
ived
refu
gee
fam
ilies
to in
tegr
ate.
It
rece
ived
an
Ofs
ted
ratin
g of
'goo
d'.
£0£5
,378
YOU
TH1s
t Sur
bito
n (S
ealio
n)
Sea
Sco
ut G
roup
This
sco
ut g
roup
pro
vide
s va
rious
ac
tiviti
es fo
r you
ng p
eopl
e to
dev
elop
th
eir p
hysi
cal,
men
tal a
nd s
ocia
l abi
litie
s su
ch a
s bo
atin
g, c
ampi
ng, t
rips
and
othe
r ou
tdoo
r exc
ursi
ons.
£3,5
00To
war
ds th
e co
st o
f a s
ailin
g gi
g to
re
plac
e an
othe
r 50
year
old
boa
t th
at is
bey
ond
repa
ir. T
he n
ew
boat
will
be
used
by
60 s
ea
scou
ts.
£0£2
,000
The
prop
osed
boa
t wou
ld b
e w
ell u
sed
and
a co
ntrib
utio
n is
reco
mm
ende
d.
£2,0
00EN
VIR
ON
MEN
TK
ings
ton
Frie
nds
of
the
Ear
thK
FoE
pro
mot
es e
nviro
nmen
tal
awar
enes
s an
d ed
ucat
ion.
£2,5
17To
pay
for a
sch
ools
en
viro
nmen
tal e
duca
tion
proj
ect.
£2,8
00£0
No
gran
t is
reco
mm
ende
d du
e to
a la
ck o
f cl
arity
abo
ut th
e pr
opos
ed p
roje
ct a
nd
conc
erns
abo
ut th
e ca
paci
ty o
f the
or
gani
satio
n to
man
age
such
a p
roje
ct. T
he
appl
icat
ion
and
subs
eque
nt c
omm
unic
atio
n w
ith th
e gr
oup
does
not
dem
onst
rate
a
will
ingn
ess
to w
ork
in p
artn
ersh
ip w
ith th
e C
ounc
il to
del
iver
env
ironm
enta
l edu
catio
n pr
ojec
ts in
sch
ools
.
Riv
er T
ham
es B
oat
Pro
ject
This
gro
up p
rovi
des
day
and
resi
dent
ial
crui
ses
and
educ
atio
nal a
ctiv
ities
on
the
Tham
es fo
r old
er p
eopl
e, c
hild
ren,
pe
ople
with
dis
abili
ties,
com
mun
ity
orga
nisa
tions
and
sch
ools
.
£2,1
00To
con
tribu
te to
war
ds th
e co
st o
f fiv
e en
viro
nmen
tal e
duca
tion
days
on
the
river
Tha
mes
for K
ings
ton
prim
ary
scho
ols.
£500
£2,1
00A
gra
nt is
reco
mm
ende
d to
fund
sch
ools
w
ho h
ave
not p
revi
ousl
y be
en a
par
t of t
his
prog
ram
me.
£4,6
17TO
TAL
£2,1
00
A11 ANNEX 2
PROJECT GRANT APPLICATIONS 2007/08BUDGET
APPLIC REC AWD0607SPORT
1 Avondale Gymnastics Club 1,000 1,000 02 Malden Wanderers Cricket Club 3,000 1,500 2,0003 Spartan Swimming Club for the Physically Disabled 3,500 3,000 3,5004 Friends of Tolworth Gymnastics Club 3,000 2,000 05 Tolworth Youth Bowling Club 3,000 0 0
13,500 7,500
ARTS1 Green Theatre Company 3,000 2,000 1,0002 ITC Fine Arts 1,320 1,000 1,0003 Kingston Arts Association 3,000 0 04 Loki Music 3,000 0 2,0005 Orange Tree Theatre 2,000 1,000 06 Saheli 3,000 1,000 1,0007 Sakoba Dance For All 3,000 2,000 2,3008 Sarvoday Hindu Association 3,000 1,000 1,2509 Stoneleigh Youth Orchestra Society 3,000 0 0# Surbiton Royal British Legion Youth Marching Band 3,000 1,500 1,250# Thames Philharmonic Choir 2,000 1,250 1,000
29,320 10,750
PLAY1 Chessington Kids Club - Holiday Club (Playscheme) 2,378 2,378 1,7502 Kingston Town Centre Management Ltd 1,500 1,500 1,2503 Refugee Action Kingston - Summer Play Scheme 1,500 1,500 1,500
5,378 5,378
YOUTH1 1st Surbiton (Sealion) Sea Scout Group 3,500 2,000 0
3,500 2,000ENVIRONMENTAL
1 Kingston Friends of the Earth 2,517 0 2,8002 River Thames Boat Project 2,100 2,100 500
4,617 2,100
TOTAL PROJECT GRANTS 56,315 27,728
A2GrantsprojectsumSportArtPlyYthEnv07080.xls
APPENDIX B Executive, 20 March 2007
FIT FOR THE FUTURE – LEARNING FROM CORPORATE ASSESSMENT Report by Chief Executive Leader of the Council and Executive Member for Performance & Improvement
Purpose The Council underwent its most intensive inspection ever in September 2006 when both the Corporate Assessment and Joint Area Review took place. Since then the Council has been progressing its medium-term service and financial planning process leading to the recent publication of “Changing Kingston – Choosing Our Future”. It is therefore timely to bring together in one report an assessment of the main corporate work streams and improvement projects that we will need to take forward in order to ensure that we build on our strengths as a Council and continue to deliver well against our residents’ priorities despite more constrained finances. Accordingly, this report summarises the findings of the Corporate Assessment, including the areas for improvement, and the actions we are taking to develop and improve our approach. Alongside these the report also identifies the main work streams that have emerged through the medium-term planning exercise that will be vital to achieving the changes and targets set out in the new four year plan. These strands are drawn together into a summary improvement programme which forms Annex 1 to the report. Action proposed by the Leader of the Council and Executive Member for Performance & Improvement: The Executive is requested to 1. Note the findings of the Corporate Assessment of the Council published in December
2006; 2. Comment on and endorse the approach set out in this report to secure the changes
and improvements required to fulfil our future ambitions and our medium-term plan; and
3. Approve the summary improvement programme set out at Annex 1 to this report as a basis for further development work.
Reason for action proposed To ensure that the Council can secure the changes and improvements required to fulfil its future ambitions and medium term plan.
BACKGROUND 1. Two major inspections of the Council were carried out in the first two weeks of
September last year. The Corporate Assessment (CA) looked at how effectively the council functions corporately and with its partners to deliver services and improved outcomes for local people; the Joint Area Review (JAR) focused on all publicly funded services for children and young people in the local area and how well such services work together to improve outcomes.
B2
2. Both inspections form part of the overall Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) regime for local authorities. Together they represent the most intense and thorough inspection ever undertaken at Kingston, involving three weeks’ on-site inspection activity by two teams which numbered at their peak more than 25 inspectors.
3. The JAR is covered by a separate report on this Executive agenda. This report
concentrates mainly on the CA.
CORPORATE ASSESSMENT (CA)
4. The CA examines how the council is working corporately, and with its partners to improve services and deliver improved outcomes for local people. It examines the community, political and managerial leadership of the council, measures how well councils understand their local communities and how this translates into a council’s ambitions and priorities; the CA also examines a council’s capacity to deliver on its ambitions and looks at what it has achieved.
5. Both the Corporate Assessment and Joint Area Review reports were published on
12 December 2006. The CA report is enclosed separately from the agenda for Members of the Council only. The inspectors found that Kingston Council consistently performs well and awarded us the highest rating in the country (‘Outstanding’) for children’s services.
6. The Audit Commission scored the Council against five key themes and made a series
of judgements and statements about how we are doing. These have been summarised below:
B3
7. The Corporate Assessment report presents a very positive picture of the Council. The strengths highlighted by the Inspectors include:
• The Council is a respected, strong and creative community leader, and works
extensively in partnership with key stakeholders, the private and voluntary sectors and with communities.
• Political and managerial leadership is strong and provides effective leadership on
difficult issues. • The importance of partnership working to deliver wider community outcomes is
established and understood. • The four established neighbourhood committees enable the Council to champion
local needs to good effect. • Achievements are strong and outstanding in some areas. These are recognised in
areas which matter the most to local people, such as crime and the quality of the local environment.
• The Council provides good value for money across the services it delivers. • The Council benefits from a highly motivated and empowered workforce.
8. We are the first (and still the only) council to score 4 for Achievement and we only just
missed being the first council to be scored 4 for its Corporate Assessment overall. We are the first to receive a score of 4 and a judgement of ‘Outstanding’ for our Children’s Services.
9. The CA methodology enables the inspection teams to benchmark our performance
against other councils. The report provides a wealth of information not only about our strengths but also about areas where there is scope for improvement. We need to use this learning effectively in our improvement and service planning.
10. The main areas for improvement identified by the CA Team are set out on page 9 of
their report. In summary these focus on the following areas-
• Ensuring more consistency in service/ team plans so that these include specific targets that focus more on outcomes – so that it is clearer what difference / impact is expected.
• Extending our performance management arrangements so that they are better integrated across our partnership working – so that as we work ever more seamlessly with partners we can maintain a strategic overview of performance measured against our wider community ambitions.
• Using ICT better to manage and share performance information across the council and within our partnerships – so that we can more easily and quickly identify issues that may require a corporate or partnership response.
• Ensuring that our developing approach to Member development is comprehensive and geared to supporting both individual members and the Council’s needs in delivering its ambitions.
• Building more capacity in project management skills that will be needed to deliver the Council’s ambitious agenda including an increasing volume of change management projects.
B4
CHANGING KINGSTON - CHOOSING OUR FUTURE 11. The CA report highlights other areas where the Council has started to put
improvements in place. Foremost among these is the development of our approach to medium term service and financial planning that was already underway when the CA inspection was on site. In addition there is also reference to a number of areas that are closely linked to the medium-term planning process, such as developing a more corporate approach to asset management, a sharper delineation of priorities within the Policy Programme, and a more systematic approach to benchmarking value for money including comparing process, costs and outcomes with partners and other providers.
12. Chapter 5 of “Changing Kingston – Choosing Our Future” sets out some of the
principles and projects that will be needed in order deliver the changes required of the Council over the next few years. In particular it identifies five Shaping Principles which underpin how we will re-shape our services in the future in order to deliver our vision of 2011 and to help us address the challenges and changes ahead-
• Prevention – we will invest now in those services which will reduce the need for
more intensive and expensive services later.
• Personalisation, choice and control – we will tailor our services to meet individuals’ and communities’ needs and aspirations and allow them greater control over the services they receive and how they receive them;
• Local settings – we will deliver services as close to the users as we can, at home or in local neighbourhoods will be our preferred approach.
• Customer focus – we will put the customer first in all we do and align our organisation to our customers rather than to our services.
• Working with partners – we will work closely with a full range of partners, voluntary, public and private in order to ensure that the most effective and efficient services are provided.
13. “Changing Kingston” also identifies a number of workstreams, such as customer first, shared services and asset management, that will be taken forward jointly by the Executive and the officer Strategy Board. All will impact on every part of the Council and all will demand a concerted corporate approach. Many will extend beyond the Council and involve the engagement of key partners, as part of our journey towards an increasingly integrated partnership approach which brings partners together with a shared focus on meeting the needs of our citizens and communities.
A Consolidated Improvement Plan 14. Because of the importance of our medium-term plan in delivering the changes and
improvements needed over the next four years, it makes sense to incorporate the “Changing Kingston” projects with our CA improvements in a single plan. A summary of projects is set out for consideration and approval at Annex 1. This includes a brief position statement for each project, and Members will see that the projects are at different stages of development and all will be subject to further detailed consideration by the Executive over the next few months.
B5
The Future of CPA
15. Although the chief driver for these changes is our ability to work with our partners to maximise outcomes for residents within the resources available, it is worth noting the changes that will be made to the performance framework for councils from 1 April 2009 onwards. These can be summarised as follows-
• CPA will become Comprehensive Area Assessment (CAA) with the implication that
increasingly it will be the performance of the local public sector as a whole that is being measured
• Elements of CPA will be retained – Direction of Travel, and Use of Resources • Annual Risk Assessment will be carried out, led by the Audit Commission,
including information from Government departments and other regulators, and including assessment of LSP/LAA performance
• The new system will not be structured around a big inspection event – there will be no CA or JAR – but an inspection could be triggered by risk assessment
• Generally there will be greater reliance on subjective judgement and performance information
• Significant reduction in performance indicators – a single national set of 200 against which all areas will report
• These national indicators will be outcome measures and citizen perspective/ satisfaction will feature prominently.
• From the 200 national set, around 35 Local Area Agreement (LAA) improvement targets will be agreed for each area – representing an agreement between central government and local areas “about priorities for improving performance against national priorities and local place-shaping ambitions”.
• New LAAs built on this model to be in place from April 2008 in advance of full implementation of new performance framework in 2009.
16. The summary of projects set out at Annex 1 also seeks to anticipate these changes, in
particular the increasing importance of integrating the performance management of our delivery partnerships around the LAA.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS
17. There are no environmental implications arising directly from this report. Author of the report: Chris Field, Chief Policy Officer 020 8547 5010 chris.field@rbk.kingston.go.uk Background Papers CPA 2005 Key lines of enquiry for corporate assessment, Audit Commission, February 2006 Corporate Assessment Self Assessment – Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames, June 2006 Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Corporate Assessment Report, published 12 December 2006
B
6
AN
NEX
1
FIT
FOR
TH
E FU
TUR
E –
LEA
RN
ING
FR
OM
CO
RPO
RA
TE A
SSES
SMEN
T SU
MM
AR
Y IM
PRO
VEM
ENT
PLA
N
PRO
JEC
T D
ESC
RIP
TIO
N O
F PR
OJE
CT
AN
D W
HY
IT IS
IM
POR
TAN
T C
UR
REN
T PO
SITI
ON
/ N
EXT
STEP
S 1.
Ref
resh
ing
the
Com
mun
ity P
lan
(CP)
and
the
Loca
l A
rea
Agr
eem
ent
(LA
A)
The
CP
is b
ecom
ing
out o
f dat
e, p
artly
bec
ause
of t
he
adve
nt s
ince
it w
as p
rodu
ced
of L
AA
s an
d th
e in
tegr
ated
chi
ldre
n’s
agen
da.
At t
he s
ame
time
the
new
Loc
al G
over
nmen
t Bill
is m
akin
g LA
As
stat
utor
y an
d gi
ving
them
a c
ritic
al ro
le in
the
new
per
form
ance
fra
mew
ork
for l
ocal
are
as th
at w
ill co
me
fully
into
ef
fect
in A
pril
2009
. Th
ere
is a
nee
d th
eref
ore
durin
g 20
07 to
refre
sh o
ur c
omm
unity
stra
tegy
and
the
need
s an
alys
is o
n w
hich
it is
bas
ed.
This
will
then
pro
vide
a
mor
e up
-to-d
ate
cont
ext f
or re
shap
ing
/ ren
egot
iatin
g ou
r LA
A fr
om 2
008
onw
ards
; and
ena
ble
us to
sho
w
how
the
thre
e-ye
ar im
prov
emen
t tar
gets
in th
e LA
A s
it w
ithin
the
long
er-te
rm a
mbi
tions
of t
he c
omm
unity
pl
an.
This
wor
k is
bei
ng o
vers
een
by th
e C
omm
unity
Lea
ders
hip
Stra
tegy
G
roup
(CLS
G) a
nd th
e P
artn
ersh
ip
Del
iver
y B
oard
(PD
B).
Key
mile
ston
es a
re th
e pr
oduc
tion
of
a K
ings
ton
Pro
file
docu
men
t by
June
20
07 a
nd a
com
mun
ity s
trate
gy
visi
onin
g ev
ent w
ith p
artn
ers
in J
uly
2007
. A
mee
ting
betw
een
the
Exe
cutiv
e an
d th
e C
LSG
is p
lann
ed in
May
w
hich
will
revi
ew th
is p
rogr
amm
e of
ac
tivity
. 2.
“C
hang
ing
Kin
gsto
n - d
evel
opin
g an
d im
plem
entin
g ou
r m
ediu
m-te
rm
serv
ice
and
finan
cial
pla
n –
alig
ning
prio
ritie
s,
reso
urce
s, a
nd
outc
omes
”
It is
vita
l tha
t we
build
on
the
mom
entu
m g
ener
ated
by
“Cha
ngin
g K
ings
ton”
to d
rive
forw
ard
the
chan
ges
requ
ired
over
the
next
four
yea
rs s
o th
at th
e ta
rget
s an
d pr
inci
ples
of t
he m
ediu
m-te
rm p
lan
are
met
and
re
side
nts’
prio
ritie
s re
alis
ed w
ithin
the
reso
urce
s av
aila
ble.
In
par
ticul
ar, f
ollo
win
g th
e pu
blic
atio
n of
the
MTS
FP,
furth
er w
ork
is re
quire
d to
arti
cula
te m
ore
prec
isel
y th
e ta
rget
s an
d ou
tcom
es w
e ar
e ex
pect
ing
from
se
rvic
es o
ver t
he n
ext t
hree
yea
rs g
iven
the
reso
urce
s av
aila
ble.
W
e al
so n
eed
to u
se th
is a
s a
sprin
gboa
rd to
brin
g ab
out g
reat
er c
larit
y an
d co
nsis
tenc
y in
our
ser
vice
/
Thro
ugh
the
“Cha
ngin
g K
ings
ton”
pr
oces
s w
e w
ill ne
ed to
gen
erat
e a
clea
rer p
erfo
rman
ce fr
amew
ork
for
our P
olic
y P
rogr
amm
e sh
owin
g th
e re
latio
nshi
p be
twee
n th
e ch
angi
ng
leve
l of r
esou
rces
and
the
outc
omes
ex
pect
ed.
This
wor
k w
ill be
take
n fo
rwar
d by
Stra
tegi
c S
ervi
ces
with
D
irect
orat
es, a
nd in
liai
son
with
E
xecu
tive
Mem
bers
. Th
is w
ill be
fu
lly re
flect
ed in
nex
t yea
r’s
“Cha
ngin
g K
ings
ton”
doc
umen
t with
pr
ogre
ss re
porte
d in
our
200
7 P
erfo
rman
ce P
lan.
B
7
team
pla
ns a
bout
the
targ
ets
we
are
setti
ng, a
gain
w
ith a
gre
ater
em
phas
is o
n ou
tcom
es.
In ta
ndem
with
this
we
will
also
m
ount
an
initi
ativ
e to
sup
port
seni
or
man
ager
s to
impr
ove
targ
et-s
ettin
g an
d ou
tcom
e fo
cus
in th
eir s
ervi
ce
plan
ning
with
a v
iew
to
impr
ovem
ents
bei
ng fu
lly
impl
emen
ted
in 2
008/
09 te
am p
lans
. 3.
Dev
elop
ing
and
Inte
grat
ing
Perf
orm
ance
M
anag
emen
t
The
futu
re s
ucce
ss o
f our
loca
l are
a w
ill de
pend
in
part
on o
ur a
bilit
y to
con
ceiv
e, p
lan
and
deliv
er in
co
ncer
t with
our
par
tner
s, a
nd fo
r tha
t pur
pose
we
need
to fu
rther
dev
elop
and
inte
grat
e ou
r per
form
ance
m
anag
emen
t acr
oss
the
coun
cil a
nd w
ithin
our
pa
rtner
ship
s.
This
dep
ends
in p
art o
n ite
m 1
and
our
abi
lity
to
refre
sh o
ur c
omm
unity
pla
n an
d LA
A to
pro
vide
sh
ared
com
mun
ity a
mbi
tions
that
focu
s ou
r pa
rtner
ship
act
ivity
. W
e al
so n
eed
to m
ake
bette
r use
of I
CT
to m
anag
e an
d sh
are
perfo
rman
ce in
form
atio
n, s
o th
at w
e ca
n m
aint
ain
a st
rate
gic
over
view
of p
erfo
rman
ce a
nd
mor
e ea
sily
and
qui
ckly
iden
tify
issu
es th
at m
ay
requ
ire a
cor
pora
te o
r par
tner
ship
resp
onse
. In
ad
ditio
n, th
e LA
A a
nd th
e ne
w a
rea
perfo
rman
ce
fram
ewor
k pl
ace
high
exp
ecta
tions
on
the
qual
ity a
nd
timel
ines
s of
our
per
form
ance
dat
a sy
stem
s an
d w
e w
ill ne
ed to
be
able
to m
eet t
hose
requ
irem
ents
.
In ta
ndem
with
the
proc
ess
of
refre
shin
g th
e C
omm
unity
Pla
n an
d th
e LA
A, w
e w
ill ne
ed to
con
tinue
to
embe
d th
e ne
w g
over
nanc
e ar
rang
emen
ts fo
r our
par
tner
ship
w
orki
ng s
o th
at th
e ne
w P
artn
ersh
ip
Del
iver
y B
oard
can
mai
ntai
n an
ov
ervi
ew o
f the
per
form
ance
of o
ur
mai
n de
liver
y pa
rtner
ship
s ar
ound
th
e LA
A.
Alo
ngsi
de th
is w
e w
ill be
pilo
ting
new
per
form
ance
sof
twar
e in
itial
ly
conc
entra
ting
on th
e da
ta s
ets
for
the
Pol
icy
Pro
gram
me
and
the
LAA
.
4. C
hang
ing
Kin
gsto
n –
The
Wor
k to
R
esha
pe
Kin
gsto
n’s’
Se
rvic
es
Ach
ievi
ng o
ur a
mbi
tions
ove
r the
nex
t fou
r yea
rs
with
in th
e re
sour
ces
avai
labl
e m
eans
that
the
Cou
ncil
need
s to
cha
nge.
“C
hang
ing
Kin
gsto
n” e
stab
lishe
s pr
inci
ples
that
will
unde
rpin
how
we
resh
ape
serv
ices
an
d id
entif
ies
a nu
mbe
r of k
ey w
orks
tream
s th
at a
re
vita
l to
achi
evin
g th
e ch
ange
s re
quire
d. T
hese
will
incl
ude-
Thes
e w
orks
tream
s w
ill be
take
n fo
rwar
d jo
intly
by
the
Exe
cutiv
e an
d th
e of
ficer
Stra
tegy
Boa
rd, a
nd w
ill
all b
e su
bjec
t to
furth
er d
etai
led
cons
ider
atio
n by
the
Exe
cutiv
e ov
er
the
next
few
mon
ths.
B
8
• an
on-
goin
g pr
oces
s of
ben
chm
arki
ng o
ur
serv
ices
aga
inst
oth
ers
to e
nsur
e th
at w
e ar
e ge
tting
val
ue fo
r mon
ey a
nd th
at p
erfo
rman
ce
and
spen
d re
flect
our
prio
ritie
s;
• pr
ogre
ssin
g “C
usto
mer
Firs
t” to
enc
ompa
ss a
ll pa
rts o
f the
cou
ncil
to c
reat
e a
sing
le a
ppro
ach
for c
usto
mer
s, m
akin
g al
l arr
ange
men
ts
cons
iste
nt, e
ffici
ent a
nd e
ffect
ive
in a
way
w
hich
bes
t sui
ts c
usto
mer
nee
ds;
• in
vest
igat
ing
the
pote
ntia
l for
sha
red
serv
ices
an
d ne
w s
trate
gic
partn
ersh
ips
as a
sou
rce
of
both
effi
cien
cy s
avin
gs a
nd im
prov
ed s
ervi
ce
deliv
ery;
•
a m
ajor
exe
rcis
e to
mat
ch o
ur a
sset
s ag
ains
t ou
r fut
ure
serv
ice
need
s an
d pr
iorit
ies
in o
rder
to
pro
duce
the
syne
rgie
s w
e ne
ed, n
ot ju
st
with
in th
e C
ounc
il bu
t with
in o
ur p
artn
ersh
ips;
th
is p
roje
ct w
ill a
lso
need
to a
ddre
ss th
e ne
ed
to b
uild
mor
e in
tern
al c
apac
ity o
n pr
ojec
t m
anag
emen
t; •
prog
ress
ivel
y re
-mou
ldin
g ou
r org
anis
atio
n to
ke
ep it
fit f
or p
urpo
se a
nd e
nsur
e its
sha
pe a
nd
size
mee
t fut
ure
need
s.
5. M
embe
r D
evel
opm
ent
The
CA
team
foun
d th
at th
ere
is a
n ef
fect
ive
mix
of
skills
and
exp
erie
nce
amon
g th
e E
xecu
tive
and
with
in
the
Nei
ghbo
urho
od C
omm
ittee
s, b
ut c
onsi
dere
d th
at
furth
er p
rogr
ess
was
requ
ired
to d
evel
op a
mor
e co
mpr
ehen
sive
pro
gram
me
for m
embe
r dev
elop
men
t th
at s
uppo
rted
both
the
indi
vidu
al n
eeds
of c
ounc
illor
s an
d th
e C
ounc
il’s a
bilit
y to
del
iver
its
impr
ovem
ent
agen
da.
The
Mem
ber D
evel
opm
ent S
teer
ing
Gro
up e
stab
lishe
d by
the
Exe
cutiv
e ha
s se
t in
train
an
asse
ssm
ent o
f M
embe
r Dev
elop
men
t and
Tra
inin
g ne
eds.
Thi
s w
ork
is b
eing
un
derta
ken
by th
e Lo
cal
Gov
ernm
ent I
nfor
mat
ion
Uni
t and
w
ill e
nabl
e us
to re
flect
the
outc
ome
of th
e as
sess
men
t int
o a
new
Tr
aini
ng a
nd D
evel
opm
ent
Pro
gram
me
for M
embe
rs. T
his
prog
ram
me
will
have
rega
rd to
the
B
9
expr
esse
d ne
eds
of M
embe
rs, b
ut
also
the
Cou
ncil's
nee
ds in
de
liver
ing
its a
mbi
tions
in th
e sh
ort,
med
ium
and
long
er te
rm. T
he
asse
ssm
ent i
s du
e to
be
com
plet
ed
by e
arly
Apr
il, 2
007.
Corporate Assessment Report
November 2006
Corporate Assessment
Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
© Audit Commission 2006
For further information on the work of the Commission please contact:
Audit Commission, 1st Floor, Millbank Tower, Millbank, London SW1P 4HQ
Tel: 020 7828 1212 Fax: 020 7976 6187 Textphone (minicom): 020 7630 0421
www.audit-commission.gov.uk
The Audit Commission is an independent body responsible for ensuring that public money is spent economically, efficiently and effectively, to achieve high quality local services for the public. Our remit covers around 11,000 bodies in England, which between them spend more than £180 billion of public money each year. Our work covers local government, health, housing, community safety and fire and rescue services.
As an independent watchdog, we provide important information on the quality of public services. As a driving force for improvement in those services, we provide practical recommendations and spread best practice. As an independent auditor, we ensure that public services are good value for money and that public money is properly spent.
Copies of this report
If you require further copies of this report, or a copy in large print, in Braille, on tape, or in a language other than English, please call 0845 056 0566.
Corporate Assessment Contents 3
Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
Contents
Introduction 4
Executive summary 6
Areas for improvement 9
Summary of assessment scores 10
Context 11
The locality 11
The Council 12
What is the Council, together with its partners, trying to achieve? 13
Ambition 13
Prioritisation 15
Capacity 18
Performance management 21
What has been achieved? 25
Sustainable communities and transport 26
Safer and stronger communities 28
Healthier communities 31
Older people 33
Children and young people 34
Appendix 1 - Framework for Corporate Assessment 37
4 Corporate Assessment Introduction
Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
Introduction1 Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) is the means by which the Audit
Commission fulfils its statutory duty under section 99 of the Local Government Act 2003 to make an assessment, and report on the performance, of local authorities. Corporate assessment is one element in the overall assessment that leads to a CPA score and category.
2 The purpose of the corporate assessment is to assess how well the Council engages with and leads its communities, delivers community priorities in partnership with others, and ensures continuous improvement across the range of Council activities. It seeks to answer three headline questions which are underpinned by five specific themes.
What is the Council, together with its partners, trying to achieve?
Ambition
Prioritisation
What is the capacity of the Council, including its work with partners, to deliver what it is trying to achieve?
Capacity
Performance management
What has been achieved?
Achievement
Considered against the shared priorities of:
sustainable communities and transport;
safer and stronger communities;
healthier communities;
older people; and
children and young people.
3 Corporate assessments are normally aligned with a joint area review of services for children and young people (JAR). In practice this means that the Council’s achievements in relation to children and young people are assessed using the evidence provided from the JAR. In addition, examples of outcomes and activity, which are relevant to the other themes and which are identified through the JAR, are considered within the corporate assessment.
Corporate Assessment Introduction 5
Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
4 The JAR covers all services for children and young people that are directly managed or commissioned by the Council, as well as health and youth justice services provided by other bodies. It focuses on the contributions made by services to improving outcomes. The separate JAR report covers the leadership and management of services for children and young people and, in particular, the way that such services work together to improve outcomes. The description and judgement in respect of children and young people in this report is summarised from the JAR report.
6 Corporate Assessment Executive summary
Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
Executive summary 5 Kingston Council is performing well. It has a clear vision underpinned by a set of
challenging long term ambitions linked to the medium term Community Plan. Taken together, these aim to make a measurable difference to Kingston, the place and for its local communities over the next 20 years. Supported by effective prioritisation and based on a shared understanding of need and what matters the most to local people, there is realism for its delivery. Key service and partnership strategies, including the recently agreed Local Area Agreement (LAA) set out short, medium and longer term improvements. These will deliver significant redevelopment of Kingston Town Centre, key to the overall economic well being of the borough, as well as an appropriate range of anti-poverty and social inclusion initiatives targeted at the borough's vulnerable and disadvantaged groups. However, not all supporting actions and targets are outcome focused and some strategies are not in place.
6 Capacity to deliver the ambitions is good overall. The Council benefits from a highly motivated and empowered workforce, a strong track record in securing additional funding to increase capacity in priority areas and effective risk management arrangements. The devolved approach to performance management and evident performance culture has been successful in delivering some high quality, value for money services. Some areas are still developing though, such as the corporate approach to asset management, utilising the full capacity of ICT, and consistent performance management arrangements within key partnerships.
7 The Council provides good value for money across the services it delivers. There is a clear culture of delivering efficiency savings whilst maintaining the quality of services. The Council has secured £1 million of cashable savings per year since 2002, which are targeted to priority areas. The recently modernised approach to procurement is acting as a driver for efficiency, service improvement and innovation. The use of ICT is also playing its role through reducing and streamlining processing and handling costs. However joint monitoring and management of value for money across partnerships is underdeveloped.
Corporate Assessment Executive summary 7
Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
8 User focus and diversity is clearly embedded in service planning, with numerous examples of users influencing the design of services, including BME and vulnerable groups. Access to services is monitored for BME and vulnerable groups and steps are taken to address issues where these arise. Personalisation and choice are actively promoted through for example the Council's longstanding commitment to direct payments and more recently choice based letting in housing. There is a good record of decision making informed by widespread engagement and consultation with residents and stakeholders, but feedback is inconsistent, and there is limited involvement in setting specific standards and targets and in performance review. The needs of vulnerable communities are at the heart of the LAA. An appropriate range of targeted social inclusion and anti-poverty initiatives complement the high quality universal services such as education, which are seen by the Council as key to improving the quality of life for all communities. The Council works closely with the race equality council in delivering its responsibilities under race equality legislation.
9 Political and Managerial leadership is strong and respected both internally and externally. The Leader and the Chief Executive provide effective leadership on difficult issues, for example in relation to Kingston Town Centre and the new Rose Theatre. There is a clear commitment to delivering consistently high quality services and the importance of partnership working to deliver wider community outcomes is established and understood. Member officer relations are good, with a healthy mutual respect for their different roles. There is an effective mix of skills and experience amongst the Executive and within the established four neighbourhood committees. New overview and scrutiny arrangements are very recent, but early signs indicate a positive foundation for holding the Executive to account. However, progress on developing a comprehensive member development programme which meets their needs and those of the authority in delivering the ambitions is slow.
10 The Council is a respected, strong and creative community leader, and works extensively in partnership with key stakeholders, the private and voluntary sectors and with communities. It is an effective lobbyer over issues such as public transport provision. The Council takes a collaborative leadership approach to the LSP, fostering for example strong working relationships with the active voluntary sector, who co-chaired each of the theme groups developing the LAA. In partnership with local businesses, Kingston Town Centre became the first Business Improvement District in the Country, securing substantial additional investment that would otherwise have been unachievable. The four established neighbourhood committees enable the Council to champion local needs to good effect. With delegated budgets and Executive functions for a range of operational services, decision making is taken close to those most likely to be affected.Sixty four per cent of residents believe they can influence decisions that affect their neighbourhood.
8 Corporate Assessment Executive summary
Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
11 Achievements are strong overall and outstanding in some areas. These are recognised in areas which matter the most to local people, such as in crime and the quality of the environment, and are in line with national priorities. Outcomes for those most at risk of disadvantage are good. Overall crime has reduced from an already low level, and is decreasing further. National targets for the numbers in drug related treatment programmes have been exceeded. Streets are cleaner and recycling has increased from an already higher than the national average position. The Council is achieving a shift towards more environmentally friendly forms of transport through a host of ongoing infrastructure and innovative behavioural change initiatives such as personalised travel planning. The overall effectiveness of the Council's children's services is outstanding. All services for children and young people are at least good and have had a very substantial impact on improving outcomes for almost all children and young people. A broader approach to older people, building on the already excellent social care services is being implemented. Delayed discharges from hospital are kept at a low level and a high proportion of people are able to live at home. Multi-agency projects are increasing the uptake of benefits to older people. Teenage pregnancy has exceeded national targets with a continuing downward trend. Fuel poverty is reducing. Access to jobs for the disabled and those on incapacity benefits is improving. Health inequalities are being tackled through targeted activities in deprived areas of the borough such as through the Community Action Partnership, but measuring the impact on health outcomes is more difficult. Meeting the area's housing needs remains a challenging agenda particularly for affordable and sheltered housing.
Corporate Assessment Areas for improvement 9
Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
Areas for improvement 12 Consistent SMART, outcome focused action planning requires attention both
within service planning and in partnership projects. The Council needs to move towards describing the outcomes of its and its partnership activities on a more consistent basis, rather than describing the activity or output. This will make it clearer internally and externally what difference is expected and ultimately what impact was delivered.
13 The Council needs to ensure it is able to deliver consistently high quality services in line with its ambitions. The implementation of the performance management framework in practice is leading to some inconsistencies internally and with partners. As the Council with its partners moves towards more integration and seamless delivery for users, the degree of corporate or strategic overview may require review to ensure consistency of provision. Building capacity in project management skills will also be key to delivering the Council's ambitious agenda.
14 The Council should consider a strategic approach to knowledge management to facilitate easy access to data, intelligence and learning across the Council and its partnerships. This should enable a greater sophistication in identifying and acting on issues and trends that may require a corporate or partnership response.
15 The Council would benefit from ensuring that its developing approach to member development is strategic. As proposal are considered it needs to ensure that they are fit for purpose in supporting individual members and the authority's needs in delivering the Council's ambitions in the short, medium and longer term, for example, in effectively fulfilling community leadership roles.
10 Corporate Assessment Summary of assessment scores
Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
Summary of assessment scores
Headline questions Theme Score*
Ambition 3
What is the Council, together with its partners, trying to achieve?
Prioritisation 3
Capacity 3What is the capacity of the Council, including its work with partners, to deliver what it is trying to achieve?
Performance management 3
What has been achieved? Achievement 4
Overall corporate assessment score**
3
*Key to scores
1 – below minimum requirements – inadequate performance
2 – at only minimum requirements – adequate performance
3 – consistently above minimum requirements – performing well
4 – well above minimum requirements – performing strongly
**Rules for determining the overall corporate assessment score
Scores on 5 themes Overall corporate assessment score
Two or more themes with a score of 4
None less than score of 3
4
Three or more themes with a score of 3 or more
None less than score of 2
3
Three or more themes with a score of 2 or more 2
Any other combination 1
Corporate Assessment Context 11
Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
Context
The locality
16 The Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames is situated in the south west of London. The borough is important as a destination in its own right. As a place to shop, Kingston Town Centre is one of the largest and most successful shopping centres in London. It is significant not only for the continued prosperity of the borough overall, but is regionally important as a Metropolitan Centre. However, it faces increasing pressure from other centres, such as Croydon, and has been slipping down the UK Town Centre League. Kingston First, the first Business Improvement District (BID) in the country aims to reverse this decline and restore visitor numbers. K+20, the area action plan, with the proposed majorre-development of a large part of the town will have a significant impact on Kingston economically and socially.
17 As a place to learn, Kingston is a centre of excellence for education with many fine schools and an excellent Further Education College and University. As a place for leisure activities, over 30 per cent of the borough is Metropolitan Open Land or green belt. It is a centre for nightlife in London with three major clubs and is home to Chessington World of Adventures. As a place to do business it enjoys a buoyant local economy and is a centre for many knowledge based small companies. The independent district town centres of New Malden, Surbiton and Tolworth survive in their own right.
18 The population is relatively affluent overall. In 2005, Kingston was ranked as the second least deprived of the London boroughs, and ranked 266 out of 354 nationally. However this masks pockets of relative deprivation, largely concentrated in small areas associated with social housing estates.
19 The population stands at 151,800, of which 15.5 per cent are from black and minority ethnic (BME) backgrounds. This rises to 20.6 per cent for those under 18. Kingston notably has the largest Korean population in Western Europe with recent estimates as high as 15,000. The population is growing, with forecasts predicting around a 5 per cent increase by 2016.
20 The borough itself is relatively compact at 37 km2. It is characterised by attractive suburban residential areas, with large areas of Metropolitan Green Belt and Metropolitan Open Land. This inevitably places pressure on the availability of land for housing and importantly for the borough, affordable housing.
21 Unemployment is low at 2.2 per cent compared with the outer London average of 3.7 per cent in March 2005. Over 50 per cent of Kingston's residents work in the borough. Whilst the borough has a highly qualified population, with over a third of residents having a degree, the economy itself is largely low wage.
12 Corporate Assessment Context
Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
22 There is good coverage of bus services across the borough. Main line train services run from the South West to London via Surbiton, and radial road routes to the South and South West fan out from Kingston Bridge, while the A3 trunk road links the borough with inner London and the M25.
The Council
23 Following the May 2006 elections, a Liberal Democrat administration was returned. The Council has 48 members overall, one Parliamentary constituency and a shared constituency with the neighbouring borough of Richmond upon Thames. The Liberal Democrats hold 25 seats, the Conservatives 21 seats and Labour 2 seats. The Executive comprises members of the controlling group of Liberal Democrats and includes the Leader and six Executive members, each responsible for a cross cutting portfolio. Following a recent constitutional review, overview and scrutiny functions have now been split with a dedicated Scrutiny Panel, chaired by the opposition and an administration led Overview Commission. In addition a Shadow Executive, comprised of opposition members has recently been established.
24 The Council has a long established model of devolved decision making to four Neighbourhood Committees, made up of councillors representing the electoral wards within the Neighbourhood. They make decisions on a wide range of services from traffic management and planning applications, parks to libraries and grants to Voluntary Organisations.
25 The Council is relatively small, with a workforce of around 4,069. The Council's net revenue budget for 2006/07 is £103.3 million. Kingston receives a low level of government grant support for local services due to its relative affluence. Consequently 68 per cent of local expenditure is funded by the Council tax compared to the London average of only 42 per cent. This means there is little headroom for council tax increases. The Council tax for a Band D property in 2006/07 is £1,448.86, which represents an increase of 5.38 per cent compared to 2005/06.
26 The Leader chairs the Local Strategic Partnership which brings together a broad range of stakeholders that deliver services or represent local interest groups. The Partnership's Community Strategy runs from 2004 to 2009, and has recently been underpinned by a Local Area Agreement (LAA) which sets out greater specificity on the outcomes that will be delivered over the next three years in support of the Community Strategy. The partnership itself has recently been restructured. A Community Leadership Strategy Group provides the strategic direction and links formally with the Council's Executive. A Partnership Delivery Board (PDB), with links to the Council's corporate management team and chaired by the Chief Executive sits beneath this. Two members from each of the four rationalised delivery groups sit on the PDB including: Children and Young People's Trust Board; Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership; Adults/Health and Well Being; and Sustainable Communities and Transport.
Corporate Assessment What is the Council, together with its partners, trying to achieve? 13
Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
What is the Council, together with its partners, trying to achieve?
Ambition
27 The Council is performing well in this area. It has a clear set of challenging long term ambitions consistent with the medium term Community Plan. Based on a shared understanding of need and established and strong partnership working, there is clear commitment to their delivery. Taken together, these aim to make a measurable difference to Kingston, the place, and for its local communities over the next 20 years. However, understanding of the ambitions amongst some smaller stakeholders is less clear, and not all of the key strategies supporting the delivery of the ambitions are in place.
28 Kingston's Community Plan sets out clear and challenging medium term ambitions for the borough. The shared vision, described in the five year plan is to be, 'the best place to live and work'. Eight themes, framed in the national shared priorities sit beneath the vision. These aim to balance economic, social and environmental well being to enhance the quality of life of Kingston's communities. The recently agreed Local Area Agreement (LAA) provides the measurable outcomes that aim to be delivered over the next three years to support its delivery. An appropriate range of anti-poverty and social inclusion initiatives run throughout the agreement and aim to make a measurable difference to vulnerable and disadvantaged groups. For example, increasing civic participation by young people, better access to justice and referral pathways, and welfare to work programmes.
29 The Council's own ambitions are consistent with the Community Plan and set out a longer term challenging agenda for improvement. Six ambitions of equal importance, called strategic aims, provide the framework for the delivery of the Council's vision, to 'create the best opportunities, services and environment for the people of Kingston'. The strategic aims are supported by 12 key priorities and a range of linking long term strategies and effective partnerships, providing confidence for their delivery. They are as follows.
Investing in children and young people - to sustain a prosperous and inclusive community.
Caring for the environment - putting the environment at the heart of everything we do.
Enhancing Quality of Life - improve the quality of life of our residents - whether or not the Council runs the services.
Putting people first - we are proud of our diverse borough and value every resident.
Working in partnership - a strategic and campaigning Council.
14 Corporate Assessment What is the Council, together with its partners, trying to achieve?
Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
Delivering improvement - quality services that offer the best value for money.
Communications and customer care, along with personalisation and choice are cross cutting themes within each of the six strategic aims. For example, customer contact centres in housing and environment, and building on the successes in direct payments through piloting the 'in-control' model of individualised social care budgets.
30 Long term strategies supporting the delivery of the six strategic aims are stretching and realistic, but some key strategies are not yet in place. The Local Implementation Plan has challenging targets, above the London Mayor's requirements, to deliver sustainable transport, including reducing car use to45 per cent by 2011. The 16 year waste strategy sets out a longer term sustainable solution to managing the borough's waste in partnership with neighbouring authorities, aiming to achieve 47 per cent recycling and composting by 2020. However, the Housing strategy is not yet in place and there is less clarity in other areas such as the After Dark Strategy. The latter is key to providing specific clarity on how the night time economy in Kingston Town Centre will be shaped. Having key strategies in place provides confidence for the delivery of the ambitions.
31 Long term plans to re-invent the regionally significant Kingston Town Centre (KTC) are challenging. Despite not being eligible for significant external funding streams due the borough's relative affluence, K+20 sets out a raft of development opportunities that will shape the metropolitan town centre for the next 20 years. Plans include: the growth of the retail offer through new landmark shopping facilities; provision of new and refurbished offices and business space including space for creative industries; and up to 1,500 high quality new housing units, of which 50 per cent will be affordable. Around 2,500 new jobs are expected along with a broadened night time offer, including the opening of the new Rose Theatre in 2007. Plans to redevelop part of the town in partnership with a developer are advanced and based on widespread stakeholder consultation and market analysis. This increases realism for their delivery.
32 Ambitions are based upon a shared understanding of the scale of opportunities and challenges facing the borough and what matters most to local people. Extensive and wide ranging consultation, engagement and analysis occurs at many levels to inform the Council's and partners' understanding of need. Community planning events, engagement with numerous existing groups such as the Interfaith and Disabled and Older Peoples forums, and the use of MORI surveys all informed the development of the Community Plan and the recent LAA. Targeted surveys of minority communities are also used to understand needs, for example in accessing health and social services. The broad understanding of needs results in ambitions rooted in what matters to local people and the areas in most need of improvement.
Corporate Assessment What is the Council, together with its partners, trying to achieve? 15
Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
33 There is a good understanding and commitment to the vision and ambitions by members, officers and key partners. Communication to the wider public is improving - 56 per cent of residents feel they are kept well informed by the council in contrast to 47 per cent previously. However, there is less understanding amongst some smaller stakeholders, for example, smaller businesses outside of KTC, some smaller minority and voluntary sector groups.
34 The Council is a respected, strong and creative community leader. The established neighbourhood committees with executive functions and delegated budgets enable Chairs to actively champion local needs with positive results. Sixty four per cent of residents believe they can influence decisions that affect their neighbourhood. The Council has a collaborative community leadership style. In the recent development of the Local Area Agreement, the voluntary sectorco-chaired each of the theme areas. Through a cross party and cross authority lobby, a key bus route serving the north of the borough was saved.
35 Partnership working is strong. As one of the Council's six ambitions, the Council has a long standing commitment to partnership working, which is consistently externally recognised and respected. For example, the Council has been successful, in partnership with local KTC businesses in becoming the Country's first Business Improvement District, securing £3.5 million of additional investment over five years in the local environment and town centre management that would otherwise have been unachievable. Recent strengthening of partnership governance arrangements within the LSP has been implemented, including a Partnership Delivery Board. The Council's approach to the private sector is moving towards longer term partnering, with all contractors now signed up to the Partners' Charter. Strong partnership working brings capacity to support the delivery of the ambitions.
Prioritisation
36 The Council is performing well in this area. It has a set of clear priorities based on what matters most to local people and in the areas most in need of improvement. Not all of these are supported by measurable outcome focussed actions and targets for improvement. Services actively take into account differing needs of its communities, including BME and vulnerable groups, although feedback to participants of consultation and engagement activities is inconsistent. Resources follow priorities and difficult decisions are taken when required. The Council's approach to non priorities or those of lesser importance is not clearly set out in its plans.
16 Corporate Assessment What is the Council, together with its partners, trying to achieve?
Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
37 Twelve priorities of equal importance support the delivery of the overall vision of the Community Plan and the Council's own ambitions. Eight of the priorities, called key objectives, set out in the Council's overarching Policy Programme focus on what will be delivered for residents. The remaining four support the ambitions for how the council itself will work to deliver the outcomes. These include: having a thriving voluntary sector; neighbourhoods and participation; financial responsibility and improving how the council works. The public facing priorities are:
prosperous and thriving local economy;
cleaner and safer neighbourhoods;
the best place to live;
reduce, re-use and recycle;
options for travel;
a fair deal for tenants;
caring for the vulnerable; and
better schools and services for young people and families.
38 Priorities reflect what matters most to local people and the areas in most need of improvement. The local quality of the environment, crime and fear of crime remain local people's consistent top concerns. Maintaining universal high quality education and social care services are recognised by the Council as being fundamental to promoting economic prosperity through tackling inequality and social inclusion.
39 Not all of the priorities are supported by measurable, outcome focused actions and targets for improvement. Short, medium and longer term targets are set out in some service plans, the LAA and some key service strategies. For example within the 'reduce, reuse, recycle' priority, the Waste strategy implementation plans contain clear short, medium and longer term outcomes to recycle and compost 35 and 47 per cent of waste by 2010 and 2020 respectively. Incremental improvements, from an above the national average base will be delivered until the new contract is let in 2008. Under 'cleaner and safer neighbourhoods' targets are set to reduce crime by 17.5 per cent between 1 April 2005 and 31 March 2008. However some plans lack outcome focused actions and targets. For example the Homelessness Action Plan under the priority, 'a fair deal for tenants', and the Cultural Strategy under the, 'best place to live', priority.
Corporate Assessment What is the Council, together with its partners, trying to achieve? 17
Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
40 Local intelligence and residents views and expectations are used effectively at a service level to inform priorities. Consultation and engagement activities are mainstreamed, through the service planning framework and supplemented by a range of established forums. In addition there is ongoing engagement through neighbourhood committees, Citizens' panel, and the use of surveys. These ensure an ongoing understanding of individuals', groups' and area needs. Combating anti-social behaviour (ASB) was identified as a high priority for residents and businesses following detailed consultation and review, including engagement with youth in reducing crime and promoting diversionary activity. As a result a number of targets were set to tackle the underlying determinants, for example a 5 per cent increase in public satisfaction with visible policing by 2007/08. However, feeding back to participants on what has changed as a result of their input is inconsistent. Co-ordination of consultation activities and outcomes is just beginning as part of the new consultation strategy. By engaging with local people the Council increases the effectiveness of its planning and actions.
41 Services actively take account of the needs of BME and vulnerable groups in their design and delivery. The target for all bus stops to be fully accessible by 2008/09 came out of consultation with older people's and mobility impaired groups. The MILAAP centre for Asian Elders, and the New Malden helpdesk and translation of the A-Z of services into a ten page directory for the Korean Community came out of consultation exercises. Surveys of children and young people led to a recording studio in Hook. In addition the Council is working to meet level 3 of the Local Government Equality Standard.
42 The Council has been successful in influencing partners to line up behind priorities, including integrating approaches to setting priorities and allocating resources. Under, 'caring for the vulnerable' the Council has influenced the PCT to deliver an integrated service for disabled children by 2008, alongside established integrated health and social care teams for older people. Within 'cleaner and safer neighbourhoods', the council with the police deliver mixed neighbourhood policing teams. Within 'better schools and services for young people and families' the CYPP identifies a total of £126 million of revenue funding between the local authority, the Connexions service and the Learning and Skills Council to provide services for children and young people in 2006/07.
43 There is a clear link between priorities and financial planning, and difficult decisions are taken when necessary. The Council's policy led budget approach ensures service and financial planning is integrated through the Medium Term Financial Plan (MTFP). Both revenue and capital follows priorities to support their delivery. Almost £3.5 million of cashable savings since 2002 has been recycled back into priority areas. For example £295,000 went to recycling, £250,000 for road/street improvements and £150,000 to street cleansing. Difficult decisions have been taken for example in charging for domiciliary care, and proceeding with the opening of the Rose Theatre. The cutting of decorations to older people's Council properties was another example of a difficult decision needed in order to re-direct resources into achieving the Decent Homes Standard. The new MTFP is currently being worked on for 2007 to 2011 which will set out the approach to priority and budget setting for that period.
18 Corporate Assessment What is the Council, together with its partners, trying to achieve?
Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
44 The Council's approach to non priorities or those of lesser importance is not clearly set out in its plans. The current overarching corporate policy programme does not set out a clear hierarchy of priorities, arranged in order of importance. Currently, services have to prioritise individually in collaboration with the relevant Executive member, and between neighbourhood committee areas. The resulting hierarchy is not explicitly set out in their plans. In addition, the Council has reduced the number of priorities in the policy programme from 24 to 12 following the recent local elections, but this represents an amalgamation of the previous set rather than a material change to current commitments. Priorities for the next two to four years are being refined in tandem with the developing MTFP, but it is too early to assess if priorities will change as a result.
45 The Council effectively maintains its focus on delivering the priorities. Following the May 2006 local elections officers have worked quickly to translate the manifesto into the overarching policy programme which sets out the actions that will be delivered over the first year. Portfolio holders undertake ongoing monitoring of actions through regular meetings with service heads and informal communications. Progress reports on individual actions such as the library plan go to neighbourhood committees. Member and officer groups provide a more intensive focus on areas for improvement such as Housing and Waste services, with improvements successfully delivered in each. These formal and informal mechanisms ensure focus is maintained.
Capacity
46 The Council is performing well in this area. Capacity is enhanced through strong political and managerial leadership and a committed and motivated workforce. Partnership working is effectively utilised to deliver the ambitions for the borough. Financial management is sound and there is a track record of successfully securing external funding to support delivery in priority areas. The Council has been investing in building longer term sustainable capacity through procurement practices, strengthened overview and scrutiny arrangements and revised LSP governance structures. Progress on member development is slow, and the corporate approach to asset management is underdeveloped. The Council's ICT capacity is not fully utilised, for example in knowledge management.
47 Political and managerial leadership is strong. The Leader and the Chief Executive provide effective leadership, for example in relation to Kingston Town Centre and the new Rose Theatre. They are well respected both internally and amongst partners. There is an effective mix of skills and experience amongst the single party Executive and within the established four neighbourhood committees which take delegated decisions on a range of operational services. However slower progress is being made to understand and meet the skills and competency requirements of members to deliver the future priorities. This is acknowledged and proposals to address this are underway. There has been a lack of evaluation on the effectiveness of the previous years' programme limiting progress.
Corporate Assessment What is the Council, together with its partners, trying to achieve? 19
Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
48 The Council benefits from a committed and highly motivated workforce, supported by effective and successful human resource (HR) management. HR practices, including training and development for staff, are regularly reviewed and linked to corporate strategies and priorities ensuring competencies and skills are in place to deliver the Council’s ambitions. The workforce is largely reflective of the local community, with action being taken to improve the representation of women and BME at senior management level. Sickness levels are low, with figures in the best quartile for the past three years. Staff are empowered to innovate in service delivery, such as the direct payment initiative. Project management skills however, need to be harnessed and developed, given the ambitious agenda to deliver projects such as K+20.
49 There is a strong approach to workforce planning both within the Council and with partners to support the delivery of its future plans. Consequently performance on recruitment and retention is good. For example the Council, in partnership with the local PCT, voluntary and community sector partners has developed a five year strategic Workforce Development Framework aimed at enhancing the quality of social care staff.
50 Member and officer relations are strong, open and mutually respectful. There is clarity and a healthy working respect for their different roles. The Council's Standards Committee is working well and has an appropriate profile. The Corporate Development Team (CDT) and Executive members work jointly to provide an effective focus at strategic level on driving improvement and achieving long term objectives.
51 The Council is improving its Overview and Scrutiny functions, building on some satisfactory performance, for example in the Health Overview and Scrutiny Panel. Previous arrangements were adequate overall. Overview and Scrutiny are now separate with a single opposition led Scrutiny Panel and an administration led Overview Commission contributing to policy development. These arrangements, established after the recent elections, are new and in the process of being embedded. Early indications from the first Scrutiny Committee are that the new arrangements provide a sound foundation to build on in holding the Executive to account.
52 The openness and transparency of key officer decisions is not effective. There are no arrangements to record key decisions taken by officers under delegated authority. This creates the risk that these are not available for call-in or are easily accessible.
53 The role of the established neighbourhood structures is being enhanced to deliver the key ‘neighbourhoods and participation’ priority. The four neighbourhood committees, with their dedicated budgets, already effectively bring decision making close to residents and local communities. However, following the constitutional review and independent expert input, their remit is being developed to enhance their community leadership role across a wider range of issues and to extend the opportunities to engage more widely with their local communities. Neighbourhood charters, linked to the aims of the Community Plan, are in the process of being developed. As a result the Council is strengthening further its responsiveness and ability to provide tailored responses to local needs.
20 Corporate Assessment What is the Council, together with its partners, trying to achieve?
Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
54 Partnership working is particularly strong, well established and effectively utilised to deliver the ambitions for the borough. In line with the priority of, ‘having a thriving voluntary sector’ the Council is enhancing its capacity to address inequalities and social inclusion by supporting the already active sector to play its key role in delivering the vision and the LAA. Grants to the voluntary and community sector range from small and neighbourhood grants to strategic three year funding. For example the Council provides strategic funding to the MILAAP centre for Asian elders, who work with the Kingston Chinese Association to offer recreational and community support to the local Chinese community at the centre. A Voluntary Sector Board has recently been set up to further improve partnership arrangements by increasing communication and access to elected members, and providing an opportunity to discuss wider partnership issues.
55 The Council’s strategic approach to partnering and procurement is enhancing its long term capacity to deliver more cost effective services in innovative ways. Recently awarded long term contracts such as, Leisure Services, and Parks Management and Grounds Maintenance are intended to lever in investment and secure improvement through stable but flexible long term partnerships. The recently revised Procurement Strategy, in partnership with the local Chamber of Commerce is also being used to support local supply chains through sourcing minor and routine procurement locally and encouraging its main contractors to use local sub-contractors. Twenty eight per cent (£28 million) of procurement spend in the last year has been to local businesses. This has increased to 31 per cent since April 2006.
56 Partnership governance arrangements of the wider LSP have recently been rationalised and strengthened. The Community Leadership Strategy Group (CLSG) maintains the strategic overview. The Partnership Delivery Board (PDB) focuses on driving improvements and delivery of the outcomes of the LAA. The new arrangements better align with the Council’s own governance arrangements, formally linking the Executive with the CLSG and the CDT with the PDB. This helps to develop a greater strategic understanding and focus as well as increased local capacity to deliver the vision and LAA outcomes. Whilst arrangements are new, there is clear commitment from both the partners and the council to make it work successfully.
57 The Council has secured financial capacity to deliver on its 2006/07 priorities. The approved capital programme funding takes account of all external funding, which has delivered additional capacity of £20.9 million for the next two years. The Council has agreed a medium term financial plan (MTFP) for 2005/06 to 2008/09, based on the previously approved Policy Programme. The Council has maintained a focus on reducing service costs, investing the efficiency savings and building up its reserves. This has enabled it to contain council tax increases and to improve value for money.
Corporate Assessment What is the Council, together with its partners, trying to achieve? 21
Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
58 Kingston has a strong track record in securing external funding to increase its capacity to deliver in priority areas. Examples include, successfully bidding for £3.9 million for highways related schemes in 2006/07 from Transport for London (TfL), and securing £9.9 million from the Department for Education and Skills in capital grants for maintaining and modernising its schools. The Council is utilising prudential borrowing to fund its capital works, amounting to just over 50 per cent of its capital funding programme. As a result, the Council has been able to invest £2.4 million in undertaking a programme of major repairs to Council buildings and meeting its obligation under the DDA, as well as investing £1.75 million in highways investments and lighting.
59 The Council’s corporate approach to asset management is underdeveloped. Until recently, property was seen as a fixed asset within individual departments. An asset and project management group is currently being formed to facilitate a corporate landlord approach to managing and securing best value from its assets. This is being linked to the review of the MTFP and remaining two to four years of the Policy Programme.
60 The Council has sound arrangements in place for risk management. Corporate risks have been reviewed and reassessed, and explicitly form part of strategic and service planning. There is a strong track record of the successful and effective risk management in service developments. For example an inspection and maintenance system based on the volume of pedestrian traffic was developed in the highways department. As a result, the risk of accidents is reduced.
61 The Council's use of its ICT capacity is not fully effective. ICT is used to improve access to services, through the website; the use of electronic kiosks throughout the borough, and users' ability to make payments and book facilities on line. The Council has recently implemented the Children’s integrated assessment and information system. However, whilst data and intelligence is shared effectively within partnerships, the Council does not maximise its ICT capacity to hold and manage knowledge across services and between partnerships as a strategic resource. In addition some internal administrative IT systems such as the HR system are nearing the end of its useful life. Whilst action is being taken to replace the system, its current capacity impacts on payroll administration issues with contractual partners.
Performance management
62 The Council is performing well in this area. The clear member and officer commitment to devolved performance management has been successful in delivering some high quality value for money services. Financial monitoring and performance review are linked and effective in ensuring focus is maintained on delivering priorities and securing improvements. But there are some inconsistencies in practice, and in the frequency of performance reporting. Performance management arrangements across the Children's partnership are good, but are developing across other partnerships.
22 Corporate Assessment What is the Council, together with its partners, trying to achieve?
Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
63 The Council has a good record of being a performance driven organisation delivering effective and efficient services. There is a strong member and officer commitment to a devolved approach to owning, managing and monitoring performance, which delivers ongoing improvements in services for local people. Underpinned by its policy programme, key service strategies and service delivery plans, staff are consistently clear what is expected of them and what training and development support is available in delivering their targets. As a result the evident performance culture is helping to deliver tangible improvements in service priorities, both within already high performing services, as well as previously underperforming ones. For example, the Council is one of only eight in England to have the highest rating, three-star education and social care services.Un-audited 2005/06 figures for the CPA basket of performance indicators demonstrate positive absolute performance and direction of travel. Sixty eight per cent of selected PIs improved between 2004/05 and 2005/06, with 31 per cent in the best quartile and 55 per cent overall in the best and second quartile.
64 User involvement in shaping services is good, For example, the Kingston Panel is routinely engaged to seek views in a range of issues including parking, recycling and on local spending priorities. As a result the opening hours in two Town Centre multi-storey car parks were extended and provision made for parking spaces for bicycles.
65 The Council provides good value for money across the services it delivers. Well established principles for reviewing and improving efficiencies are consistently applied across all services. There is a clear culture of delivering efficiency savings whilst maintaining the quality of services. Over the past six years, the Council has achieved £20 million in real terms budget savings, with £1 million of cashable savings per year since 2002. As a result, in the 2006/07 budget, identified efficiency savings from back office functions, day care for the elderly and sports, arts and adult education are targeted to priority areas. As a result of grant funding from the Council, the Citizens' Advice Bureau, is able to extend advisory services to twice as many clients than the Council could have done.
66 Financial monitoring is sound, well embedded and linked to performance monitoring. The CDT has a prominent and active role in reviewing budgets, especially in dealing with spends and potential overspends. Variances in budgets are addressed effectively. For example, in November 2005 the Council was predicting an overspend. Through effective and strong financial controls, led by the CDT, the Council was able to turn around the position, achieving anunder-spend by the end of the financial year, part of which helped build reserves and contain increases in council tax levels. Budgets and performance are monitored by CDT and Executive and by individual Portfolio members with service heads.
Corporate Assessment What is the Council, together with its partners, trying to achieve? 23
Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
67 The performance framework is clear, understood and owned by staff and members, but there are some inconsistencies in approach. Comprehensive guidance on service planning is issued to managers but this is not consistently followed across the organisation. Some examples include Trading Standards, Income and Cashiers Department and Life Long Learning and Leisure. Ensuring a consistent approach is important to delivering the ambition of consistently high quality services.
68 SMART, outcome focused action planning and robust target setting is varied. Whilst there are examples where this is done effectively, this is not replicated consistently across services. For example, the Homelessness Action Plan contains targets that are not consistently outcome focused or challenging and can demonstrate attributes of being SMART. Actions included in some service plans focus on processes rather than impact. User engagement in setting specific standards and targets is limited.
69 Performance comparisons are used effectively to promote self awareness and drive improvements within services and across some partnerships. Top level PIs are compared with top performing authorities, and service benchmarking has delivered improvements in services such as highways. The CDRP receives crime figures on a regular basis showing comparisons with national and London performance. However there is a lack of comparison undertaken on financial and value for money aspects. Mechanisms do not currently exist to compare and evaluate process, costs and outcomes with partners and other providers.
70 There are effective performance review mechanisms in place to ensure focus is maintained on delivering priorities, but the frequency of formal reporting is inconsistent. At service level, reviews are undertaken as part of regular meetings between service heads and portfolio members, or through more intensive dedicated member officer groups, with positive effect. For example, Housing is now rated as a three out of four service block in the CPA. Corporately, top level PIs linked to the priorities are reviewed quarterly by the Everyone Counts group (ECG), chaired by the Chief Executive before reporting formally to the Executive. However, over the last 12 months reporting has occurred only twice. User involvement is also limited in reviewing performance. For example tenants are involved in engaging new repairs and maintenance contractors but are not involved in reviewing their performance. As a result, performance reporting is not as open and transparent and readily accessible to all members, stakeholders and to the wider community. This has the potential to impact on their ability to be able to challenge performance effectively.
71 Overall, performance management arrangements with key delivery partners are developing. Refined LSP governance arrangements have recently been put in place to strengthen accountability and a focus on delivery. The Council with its partners is in the process of developing a performance management framework for the delivery of the recently agreed LAA, but this is not yet in place. Performance management across the Children and Young People's Trust Board is more advanced and is good. With a clear focus on underperformance, improvement has already been delivered. For example improved standards in lower performing sixth forms.
24 Corporate Assessment What is the Council, together with its partners, trying to achieve?
Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
72 The Council is open to sharing data with individual partnerships to good effect. Several partnerships, for example the crime and disorder partnership and the Health partnership, routinely share data to redesign and flex services. As a result, it targets additional support to areas in need of improvement; for example, it commissioned a voluntary community sector (VCS) partner to survey BME service users to identify reasons. Cultural and transport issues were identified as barriers and these have influenced the partnership's childcare strategy to improve access to services. However, the Council does not have a systematic approach to sharing data and intelligence across partnerships and as a result a corporate or more strategic partnership response is more difficult to identify and achieve.
73 The Council is an open and learning organisation, making good use of external evaluations and responding effectively to user views. There is constructive use of consultation and user satisfaction information to review and improve service performance. Complaints of alcohol misuse and discovery of discarded needles at a local park, triggered an alcohol free zone at Fairfield park and the Council's Alcohol and Harm Reduction Strategy. The Council has recently invited peer review and commissioned a review on constitutional arrangements. The role of scrutiny in reviewing performance management was limited under previous arrangements. Following the external review, revised arrangements are in place, with scrutiny now chaired by the opposition. This demonstrates a constructive use of external evaluation in order to learn and reflects a high degree of self awareness.
Corporate Assessment What has been achieved? 25
Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
What has been achieved? 74 The Council is performing strongly in this area. The ambitions of the Community
plan are framed in the national shared priorities. The Council's own priorities flow from these and reflect national, regional and local agendas. Cross cutting agendas such as social inclusion and anti-poverty are mainstreamed throughout the Council's and partnership activities and embodied in the LAA.
75 Capacity to deliver its ambition and priorities is effectively enhanced through extensive partnership working and importantly co-ordinating activities across its own services to maximise impact. For example with the Police and Kingston First to deliver the, 'cleaner safer neighbourhoods' and, 'a prosperous and thriving local economy' priorities. In partnership with local businesses, Kingston Town Centre became the first Business Improvement District in the Country, securing substantial additional investment to improve the physical environment and management that would otherwise have been unachievable. Planning, transport, youth and housing services work effectively to contribute to the delivery of the safer and stronger agenda. The Council has been particularly successful in securing external funding and lobbying in line with priorities, such as highways improvements and increased frequencies and extensions to bus services to improve access. Longer term sustainable capacity is being enhanced through new procurement approaches. Performance management is used effectively to deliver improvements in underperforming services, such as environment services and housing and in already high performing service such as education.
26 Corporate Assessment What has been achieved?
Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
76 Achievements are good overall and outstanding in some areas. These are recognised in areas which matter the most to local people, such as in crime and the quality of the environment, and are in line with national priorities. Outcomes for those most at risk of disadvantage are good. Overall crime has reduced from an already low level, and is decreasing further. National targets for the numbers in drug related treatment programmes have been exceeded. Streets are cleaner and recycling has increased from an already higher than the national average position. The Council is achieving a shift towards more environmentally friendly forms of transport through a host of ongoing infrastructure and innovative behavioural change initiatives such as personalised travel planning. The overall effectiveness of the Council's children's services is outstanding. All services for children and young people are at least good and have had a very substantial impact on improving outcomes for almost all children and young people. A broader approach to older people, building on the already excellent social care services is being implemented. Delayed discharges from hospital are kept at a low level and a high proportion of people are able to live at home. Multi agency projects are increasing the uptake of benefits to older people. Rates of teenage pregnancy are lower than national targets with a continuing downward trend. Fuel poverty is reducing. Access to jobs for the disabled and those on incapacity benefits is improving. Health inequalities are being tackled through targeted activities in deprived areas of the borough such as through the Community Action Partnership, but measuring the impact on health outcomes is more difficult. Meeting the areas housing needs remains a challenging agenda particularly for affordable and sheltered housing.
Sustainable communities and transport
77 The Council has a holistic and integrated approach to delivering its vision for being the 'best place to live and work'. Achievements are evident against all of the key objectives which underpin this shared priority area, although progress in meeting the area's housing needs is slower.
78 A comprehensive programme of infrastructure improvements is well advanced, supporting the delivery of the, 'options for travel' priority. Investments in the highway infrastructure have seen principal and non principal roads achieving top quartile performance, in line with local people's wishes. Ongoing investments will make all bus stops fully accessible and bring all footway conditions up to standard by 2008/09. One hundred per cent of the bus fleet is now accessible with further increases in frequency and extensions to routes planned for implementation in 2007/08. Bus patronage has increased with 78 per cent of residents very satisfied with buses.
Corporate Assessment What has been achieved? 27
Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
79 In line with the 'options for travel' priority, the Council is achieving modal shift through a range of proactive and innovative approaches. A 10 per cent reduction in car usage has been recorded to date. The successful Christmas Park and Ride Scheme for Kingston Town centre saved 40,000 car trips, with a 10 per cent growth in passenger numbers in 2005. However, key plans for a permanent park and ride scheme are more developmental. Forty per cent of schools now have an approved travel plan with the remaining 60 per cent on target to have them by 2009. The New Malden pilot for the innovative 20,000 household personalised travel planning initiative, in partnership with Tfl has recently finished, and is undergoing evaluation.
80 Improving the quality of the environment has been achieved and recognised in line with the priority. In partnership with Kingston First, improvements to the quality of KTC's physical environment has been achieved through: enhanced street cleaning, environment rangers operating seven days a week, new and refurbished street furniture, regular gum removal; daily street washing in high traffic areas; and enhanced hanging baskets, tree and planting programmes. More responsive graffiti removal and the removal of abandoned cars borough wide are recognised by residents and stakeholders. Whilst improvements are recognised in street cleaning borough wide the latest Encams survey returned a slight drop in performance, largely due to issues with detritus.
81 Much has been delivered against the, 'reduce, re-use and recycle' priority. Twenty five per cent of waste was recycled/composted in 2005/06, as a result of increased participation in the kerbside recycling scheme, estate based recycling, and refurbishment of the boroughs bring banks. Growth in waste has reduced by 3 per cent, although it is too early to determine if this is a long term trend or largely the result of improvements in data quality. Plans to develop a longer term sustainable solution to managing the borough's waste in partnership with neighbouring authorities are advancing, with promising private sector interest.
82 Whilst unemployment is low at 2.2 per cent, the Council, with its partners has been proactive in supporting a 'prosperous and thriving local economy'. This recognises the importance of a sustainable and vibrant local economy for the well being of the borough overall. Policies and initiatives include safeguarding employment workspace through planning and improving access to jobs for targeted groups, such as the disabled and those on incapacity benefits through welfare to work programmes. Forty people have been helped into jobs over the last year. Local Business are supported through the buy local commitment within the new Procurement Framework and local retail skills gaps are being addressed in collaboration with Kingston College. Enhancing the physical appearance of centres outside of the main Kingston Town Centre in order to improve viability and economic growth and jobs is seen as key to the Council's approach. Improvements to the streetscape have been delivered in New Malden with investments secured for improvements to Tolworth, including the filling in of a subway and landscaping. Surbiton businesses are being supported through the development of a loyalty scheme.
28 Corporate Assessment What has been achieved?
Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
83 Kingston town centre remains economically significant to the borough and in partnership with Kingston First, achievements are being realised. In the first 15 months of the BID a cleaner and safer town centre has been achieved. Dedicated marketing campaigns returned a rise on town centre footfall by approximately five per cent in the four weeks leading up to Christmas in 2005. Public transport access to the centre is improving. Successful lobbying to support the night time economy has secured increases in frequencies and extensions to bus services to and from the town centre including night services to Chessington in the south of the borough. Long term investment plans to re-develop part of the town centre through K+20 are progressing with a private developer.
84 The Council has been less successful in ensuring housing supply meets the needs of the area. Steps are being taken to ensure affordable housing is secured from major developments. For example, the Royal Court development in partnership with Richmond Churches Housing Association has delivered 110 affordable units, of which 30 plus intermediate homes are affordable to households earning less than £30,000 a year. Fifty per cent of the proposed residential units across three of the major sites in KTC will be affordable following agreement with the developer. However, current delivery of 179 affordable homes between 2004 and 2006, in contrast to the anticipated housing need for 1,365 affordable homes annually falls short of need. Demand still significantly outstrips supply, which also has the potential to impact on local recruitment and retention. The Council’s sheltered housing needs modernising. Twenty per cent of the stock has shared facilities. A housing needs survey is currently in progress which will feed into the delayed overarching housing strategy. The Council is on track to achieve the decent homes standard by 2010 for its social housing stock and is improving choice through the recent successful launch of the choice based letting scheme.
Safer and stronger communities
85 The Council works effectively through a range of partnerships to achieve its priorities for safer and stronger communities. It has been identified as the safest borough in London in the independent Reform Group's recent report. The Kingston Community and Police Partnership includes the Kingston Domestic Violence Forum and the Drug and Alcohol Action Team. There is good understanding of their respective roles by the partners and close co-ordination of activities. The Council’s community safety strategy, for 2005 to 2008, is comprehensive and accessible and contains clear priorities and targets, including some joint targets with the police.
Corporate Assessment What has been achieved? 29
Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
86 Overall crime has reduced. Between 2004/05 and 2005/06 overall crime reduced by 3.9 per cent from an already low base, meeting most of the targets for crime reduction and sanctioned detections (crimes solved) and exceeding many. The first four months of this performance year have seen an 11.9 per cent reduction, building on the successes already achieved in 2005/06. To support the night-time economy at Kingstown Town Centre, the Council in partnership with the police and the business sector has put in place a range of initiatives. For example, the installation of three licensed mini-cab booking kiosks in the vicinity of the main night club areas for a trial period over the summer to make it easier to book cabs at night. Cab marshals are provided by the night club and paid for by the mini cab companies. The project is supported by Kingston First, Kingston Police and the Council in association with TfL's Public Carriage Office. As a result, Kingston First achieved a 14 per cent reduction in assaults in Kingston town centre.
87 The Council demonstrates a comprehensive approach in using its services, such as the planning system, transport, and housing, to effectively contribute to its safer and stronger agenda. It recognises the need to address environmental and economic concerns as well as general crime if it is going to have a sustainable and long term impact on crime and anti-social behaviour. Examples include undertaking planting schemes on housing estates aimed at deterring youth from congregating, designing a purpose-built youth shelter to provide alternative places for young people and clearing a dumping hotspot in Surbiton with joint input from the probation service, the rangers and the Council's environment services.
88 Partners recognise the priority the Council places on safer and stronger communities and its contribution through a range of initiatives. Initiatives include jointly funded posts within the police borough intelligence unit enabling better information exchange, as well as reducing the potential for duplication, thus gaining maximum value for money. The Council is using mixed neighbourhood policing teams to tackle community concerns such as solving crime and dealing with anti-social behaviour. Partnership initiatives instituted over the last year have brought considerable payback in terms of reducing crime and disorder, and police and partners are increasingly visible in the Town Centre in the form of Town Centre Rangers, Cab Marshals and Street Pastors. The Council has recently signed a protocol with NCP, which has brought the Borough’s parking attendants into the extended policing family. Such initiatives ensure that activities areco-ordinated between partners to make them more effective and provide for a higher visible uniformed presence.
30 Corporate Assessment What has been achieved?
Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
89 The council is making investments to build strong and cohesive communities. Examples include the well attended annual, 'Kingston Carnival', organised by Kingston Racial Equality Council (KREC) in partnership with the Council and various organisations based in Kingston. The event promotes diversity and multiculturalism through celebration and dance with an underlying message of tolerance and respect. Recently, the council, the police and the KREC issued a joint press release following the recent London bombings. In addition, the council, with contributions from the Police, the Inter-Faith Forum, KREC and other voluntary groups has launched a London Peace forum, with open days in the Police Station, local churches, synagogue and mosque, as well as stalls for providing community safety advice to international students arriving at the local university. The Interfaith forum also acts as an effective channel of communication and consultation in events of developing crisis. It aids open discussion of welfare issues affecting members of faith and ethnic minority groups, including students at Kingston University.
90 The Council’s approach to the resilience agenda is fit for purpose. Clearly set out in its Business Continuity and Emergency Plan, it is linked to business continuity plans and co-ordinated with other south London authorities for mutual aid. In partnership with the Chamber of Commerce, the Council has developed a framework for the development of corporate and service business continuity plans, and there are up-to-date risk assessments. The Council is also actively promoting business continuity within the borough. The Council has undertaken emergency exercises, led by the police, and has actively secured involvement of the voluntary sector within the Incident Support Team to add value on the caring aspects of emergency planning, assisting in the setting up of family assistance and rest centres.
91 The Council has secured effective partnership working to reduce accidents. One thousand children are trained annually on cycling proficiency and as a result of a variety of education and traffic calming measures the Council is on track to meet the statutory casualty reduction targets by 2010. Other initiatives include providing a summer scheme at Tolworth Recreation Ground, aimed at children to provide guidance on the importance of crossing road safely. The Council’s Road Safety and Travel Awareness Unit also provides play equipment free of charge to local nurseries and playgroups.
92 The Council has worked effectively with the local Fire Brigade in reducing accidental fires by 19 per cent. Over 1,000 Home Fire Safety checks for residents over the past two years, including the fitting of a free smoke alarm where needed has resulted in a 5 per cent reduction in accidental dwelling fires. Other measures to reduce accidents include undertaking testing of electric blankets for older people and undertaking fire safety campaigns aimed at children.
Corporate Assessment What has been achieved? 31
Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
93 The Council has a good track record in acting as a community leader in reducing anti-social behaviour in Kingston with partners. This includes tackling domestic violence and seeking to get drug users into treatment and rehabilitation. The Council has an ASB strategy in place, structured around the key themes of prevention, education, community support and engagement, enforcement and rehabilitation. Resident representatives active in the Crime and Disorder Partnership and Safer Neighbourhood Panels reported that the Council has been successful in controlling and reducing anti-social behaviour. However, there is a lack of clear outcome focussed targets to evaluate achievement of the identified outcome measures.
94 The Council has a shared Alcohol Harm Reduction Strategy with partners, delivering some positive outcomes. The Council has exceeded national targets for the numbers in drug related treatment programmes. As a result, last year 334 Kingston drug users entered treatment, beyond the target of 283 Kingston residents set for 2005/06. Fifty two per cent of drug users completed treatment or stayed in treatment in excess of 12 weeks, again beyond the 2005/06 target of45 per cent. The Youth Interventions Partnership became operational in November 2005. To date 19 young people have been referred, 12 offered an intervention, with seven still being assessed at May 2006. None of the 12 receiving an intervention has entered the Youth Justice system to date. Another example of the Council taking active steps following consultation, is the needle exchange programme led by the Kaleidoscope project.
Healthier communities
95 The Council, with its partners undertakes a wide range of proactive activities to deliver national and local priorities with some positive results. Kingston’s Choosing Health implementation plan sets out actions agreed by all partners to deliver national and local priorities. For example, joint activities to promote smoking cessation range from smoke free council offices to targeted smoking cessation activities at schools serving relatively disadvantaged areas. As a result the numbers of people quitting smoking has risen from 485 in 2003/04 to 647 in 2005/06. Youth club programmes include preventative work on the use of alcohol and a specialist worker linked to the street based team, targets young people who are mis-using alcohol. All centres have a range of leaflets and information on drug and alcohol misuse. Young people report being better informed on issues.
32 Corporate Assessment What has been achieved?
Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
96 People in Kingston are healthier than average. Life expectancy is rising and among the highest in London. Infant mortality is in line with benchmarked groups and significantly below the national average. There are lower than average numbers of people with mental health problems and there is evidence of some good health choices being made as a result of partnership activities. Whilst benefiting from being a prosperous borough overall, geographical pockets of deprivation exist in some wards and sub-wards. There is a degree of understanding of health inequalities, but current mapping is currently not sophisticated enough to be able to identify health outcomes for discrete groups, such as BME. Developing a more robust partners' health information strategy is a key task of the recently appointed joint Director of Public Health, which will help to more accurately target provision and activities.
97 Obesity among eight to ten year olds in increasing. The multi-agency Obesity Strategy Partnership Group is developing a joint approach to diet, nutrition and exercise across the borough, targeting high-risk groups and including the promotion of exercise in schools and community settings. Participation in the Healthy Schools Programme is high at 55 per cent and all schools with infant children participate in the five fruit and vegetables a day project. The Youth Service positively promotes healthy lifestyles and offers opportunities for physical exercise. The Splash youth clubs for eight to twelve year olds includes physical activity as a significant element of each session with an emphasis on play and participation. A Youth Opportunity Card to increase access to the Council's leisure facilities for vulnerable children is in place, but its impact is not yet clear.
98 The Council is reducing fuel poverty through targeted investments and increasing grant uptake. Targeted work has resulted in an increased uptake of cold busters grants from £85,000 to £174,00 over four years. An ongoing three year programme in the Council's housing stock will result in the replacement of all boilers with the highest rated energy efficiency ones, along with a programme of insulation. There is a marked reduction in the percentage of people living without central heating.
99 Other good examples of joint working include the borough’s neighbourhood based, integrated health and social care teams which offer holistic assessments of need and user contribution to service design for older people and other vulnerable groups.
100 The council commissioned a survey of minority views in 2005 and Health Equalities Assessments have been implemented to measure access to services. The ’Update of Black and Minority Ethnic Communities’ Health and Social Care News’ aims to promote access to services across minority communities. A good range of consultation has taken place with young people in the design of new services. For example in KU19, which offers sexual health and contraception advice; in the design and development of the borough’s new adventure playgrounds and the Family Advice and Support Service (FASS), a multi-disciplinary early intervention for children’s mental health. The target for reducing the number of conceptions among 15-17 year olds has bettered national expectations with a continuing downward trend.
Corporate Assessment What has been achieved? 33
Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
101 The Community Action Partnership aims to improve services for people in the most deprived area of the borough. A commissioning group of local people, the PCT, the voluntary sector and the police has set priorities and manages the budget. However, more than two years into the project, the impact on health outcomes is unclear and take-up of some services, such as the shopping bus for older people, is low.
Older people
102 The Council and its partners have a good strategic approach to meeting the needs of older people. High level commitment is articulated through the community plan and LAA. The Active Ageing Strategy comprehensively addresses the national active ageing agenda, including helping people to be healthy and live longer as well as to improve the quality of life and independence of adults who need assistance.
103 The Council consults extensively with older people to understand their future needs and aspirations. The number of older people in Kingston has declined over the last ten years, but increasing numbers are forecast for the future. The Older People's Partnership Board has considered the implications of future needs and aspirations. For example, priority has been given to the development of Amy Woodgate, an existing residential home for older people, to meet the needs of the growing client group needing specialist provision for dementia.
104 There is good co-ordination of cross cutting agendas for older people, including strong links between housing, community services, the police, fire service, PCT and the voluntary sector. As a result a high proportion of people are able to live at home. Cross-departmental and cross-sector information for the over 50s is easily accessed via the council’s website with links to partner websites such as the PCT and Age Concern. The Council has actively sought ways of communicating effectively with older people, piloting novel approaches such as using cell phone texting to alert older people to self-help strategies during the heatwave. The Council has helped to set up the Iraqi elders group, a West African elders group and older people in Chessington were consulted about what preventative services they would like to have available from a new centre.
105 Multi-agency projects are increasing the uptake of benefits to older people andpromoting intergenerational understanding. The Kingston Information Partnership, with advice through Age Concern and access to two full time welfare benefits staff located in the Department for Work and Pensions, has increased the uptake of benefits to older people. Age Concern Kingston has developed an innovative Age and Youth Programme involving older volunteers supporting children's learning in a number of primary schools. The Executive member for Housing and Adult Services is the older people’s champion. This role has enabled practical problem solving, including the relocation of MILAAP day care services for Asian older people from poor premises to empty purpose built accommodation.
34 Corporate Assessment What has been achieved?
Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
106 Kingston has the second highest proportion of older people helped to live at home in its comparison group. Services to support people at home include the Handy Person scheme and ‘sloppy slipper’ falls prevention events. The council was a lead partner in the national development of direct payments. The partnership is on track to meet all LPSA targets, including further increases in the use of direct payments.
107 The Council has been very successful at keeping delayed transfers of care at a low level, exceeding its 2004/05 target. Integrated health and social care teams - Patient Individual Care Kingston (PICK) - are jointly funded and managed by the council and the PCT and were runners up in the national 2004 Health and Social Care Awards. Community Matrons linked to the teams and to GP practices lead on risk assessments and the management of long-term conditions with targets to reduce in-patient hospital admissions, promote person centred care, independent living and quality of life. An integrated community equipment service funded by a pooled budget has been in place for over two years. A small grant of £72,000 has been received from government for assisted technology and is being used to pilot the national scheme with small numbers of high-dependency older people.
Children and young people
108 The overall effectiveness of the council’s children’s services is outstanding. All services for children and young people are at least good and have had a very substantial impact on improving outcomes for almost all children and young people. Education services are outstanding. Very good progress has been made in strengthening the quality of universal services and developing and implementing preventative services to reduce levels of vulnerability. The capacity to build on these achievements and improve services further is good.
109 The management of services for children and young people is good. Good ambitions for children and young people are comprehensively set out in the Children and Young People’s Plan ‘Making a difference together’ which provides a challenging agenda for improvement based on a sound needs assessment. Strong leadership of the children’s agenda supported by high calibre staff and elected members underpinned by good relationships contribute to effective problem solving and a very good rate of progress. A Children and Young People’s Trust Board is in place, chaired by the council’s Chief Executive, with a good level of representation of key partners. Highly effective strategies for recruitment and retention and integrated workforce planning and development are contributing strongly to organisational capacity. The council has a good track record of increasing financial capacity through successful bids for additional funding. Current management of resources and value for money at the council are good. Performance management across the partnership is good. The council has a strong track record of focus on, and resolution of underperformance, exemplified by rapid and significant improvement in the youth service, and improved standards in the lower performing sixth forms.
Corporate Assessment What has been achieved? 35
Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
110 The general support given to parents and carers to keep their children healthy is good. Children have good access to age appropriate health services when they are ill. However, in-patient services are not provided in an appropriate setting for adolescents and unaccompanied asylum seeker children (UASC) do not have the same ease of access to health services as other looked after children (LAC). A new tier 2 Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service is providing good support to front line staff in identifying mental health problems and making appropriate referrals. The integrated support for very young children and their families with learning difficulties and/or disabilities (LDD) is very good but is less wellco-ordinated for school aged children with LDD.
111 Children and young people who are most at risk are protected well through good inter-agency collaboration and well managed procedures. Professionals in key agencies generally work well together and share information. However, not all agencies are consistently working in accordance with national guidelines to refer children who are affected by domestic violence appropriately. In addition there are some aspects of social care practice in the area of domestic violence that requires improvement. Very good progress has been made in setting up preventative services which provide early support as well as more intensive work for children and their families. Support for LAC is good but more variable for UASC. Reviews for LAC are held in a timely way, however, the Independent Reviewing Officer service is having insufficient impact on improving the quality of this work. Good support is provided for children with LDD and their families.
112 Standards in schools overall are excellent, well above national averages and generally above those in similar authorities. Services for school improvement are a particular strength. The strengthening focus on identifying and supporting specific groups of vulnerable pupils has improved their progress and attainment. Attendance is very good and innovative activities are being implemented to further reduce the low rate of unauthorised absences and improve the broadly satisfactory attendance of LAC. Good quality practice in youth work settings contributes strongly to good standards of achievement.
113 Children and young people, including LAC, are supported well to contribute to society and in managing changes in their lives. The well-conceived participation strategy reflects the strong commitment across the partnership to involve children and young people in the decisions that affect them but is not yet consistently implemented. Good targeted collaborative partnership work is effectively reducing anti-social behaviour. The council has effectively managed the rising number of young people who offend for the first time through well targeted early intervention and re-offending rates are reducing significantly.
36 Corporate Assessment What has been achieved?
Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
114 Opportunities for children and young people to achieve economic well-being and prepare for working life are outstanding. A very high proportion of young people, including those who are more vulnerable, remain in full time education at age 16. A high proportion of young people achieve level 2 and 3 qualifications by age 19. A clear and appropriate strategy to meet the needs of 14-19 year olds is being systematically implemented. Some new school sixth form partnerships are not yet well established and there is variation in standards of attainment between school sixth forms. Most young people live in appropriate accommodation, although there is a shortage of permanent accommodation for care leavers. Good transition arrangements are in place for LAC to support their progression at age 16.
Corporate Assessment Appendix 1 - Framework for Corporate Assessment 37
Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
Appendix 1 - Framework for Corporate Assessment
1 This corporate assessment was carried out under section 10 of the Local Government Act 1999, under which the Audit Commission has power to inspect local authorities’ arrangements for securing continuous improvement. The results of the corporate assessment contribute to the determination of the overall CPA category for an authority, which the Audit Commission is required to assess and report on under section 99 of the Local Government Act 2003.
2 The Council’s self assessment provided a key resource in focusing the assessment activity which included consideration of:
key documentation, including the Council’s improvement plan;
updated performance indicators and performance data; and
interviews and meetings attended.
3 The assessment for Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames was undertaken by a team from the Audit Commission and took place over the period from 4 to 15 September 2006.
4 This report has been discussed with the Council, which has been given the opportunity to examine the Audit Commission’s assessment. This report will be used as the basis for improvement planning by the Council.
APPENDIX C Executive, 20 March 2007
PUBLICATION OF THE ACTION PLAN IN RESPONSE TO THE JOINT AREA REVIEW AND ENHANCED YOUTH SERVICE INSPECTION Report by the Strategic Director of Learning and Children’s Services Executive Member Children and Young People’s Services Purpose To approve the proposed action plan in response to the recommendations in the Joint Area Review (JAR) inspection report and the enhanced Youth Service Inspection report. Action Proposed by the Executive Member for Children and Young People’s Services The Executive is requested to approve the action plan in response to the recommendations of the Joint Area Review and Enhanced Youth Inspection Reason for the action proposed It is a legislative requirement to provide and publish an Action Plan in response to the findings of the JAR and Enhanced Youth Service Inspection, and submit it to the Secretary of State and Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector, OFSTED, by 23 March 2007. BACKGROUND 1. The Joint Area Review (JAR) and Enhanced Youth Inspection took place in
Kingston in September 2006. The inspection reports were published on 12 December 2006.
2. The JAR describes the outcomes achieved by children and young people
growing up in the Kingston upon Thames area and evaluates the way Kingston Council and a range of partners are working together to contribute to their achievements, progress and well-being. The services reviewed include council services, health services, police, Learning and Skills Council, Connexions and publicly funded services provided by voluntary bodies. Evidence from other inspections, including schools, the Further Education College and residential settings also contributed to the review.
3. The JAR was enhanced to enable coverage of the Youth Service. Inspectors
considered the Youth Service’s self-assessment and met officers and a cross-section of staff. They reviewed key service documentation and carried out direct observation of a sample of youth work sessions across the borough and as part of the JAR neighbourhood study area.
C2
4. Following publication of the JAR Report the Council is responsible for publishing the report locally within 30 working days. The report has been circulated appropriately and is available on the Council’s website.
5. The Council, with its partners, is required to make a written statement of
proposed action, or action plan, in response to the recommendations in the reports. The regulations do not stipulate the form or content of the action plan, other than saying it must state when action is proposed to be taken.
6. A copy of the Action Plan must be sent to her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of
Schools and the Secretary of State by 23 March 2007 and made available to those who were sent the report. There is no requirement for approval of the Action Plan by the Secretary of State or by OFSTED.
JAR OUTCOMES 7. The JAR inspection team reported that ‘Outcomes for children and young people
in Kingston upon Thames are good in all areas and outstanding in most” and at the time of publication of the report Kingston upon Thames was the first area to be awarded a grade 4 (outstanding) for Children’s Services since the JAR inspections started in September 2005.
8. The JAR inspection team graded service provision in several areas. Grades
were allocated according to the following scale: 4-Outstanding, 3-Good, 2-Adequate, 1-Inadequate. Kingston upon Thames was awarded grades as follows: -
Local
Services Overall
Council Services
Health Services
Be Healthy 3 Stay Safe 3 Enjoy & Achieve 4 Making a Positive contribution 3 Achieving economic Well Being 4 Service Management 3 Capacity to Improve 3 3 Children’s Services 4 The education service 4 The social care services for children 3 The health service 3
YOUTH SERVICE OUTCOMES 9. The Youth Service inspectors found that “young people in Kingston are served
well by a good youth service providing good value for money.” They judged the Youth Service to be good in every respect and that there has been very good progress since the last inspection in 2001. The contributions to improving the 5
C3
ECM outcomes are good and very good in enjoy and achieve and in making a positive contribution. Grades were awarded as follows:
Standards of young people’s achievement 3 Quality of youth work practice 3 Quality of curriculum and resources 3 Strategic and operational leadership and management
3
RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE INSPECTION REPORTS 10. In response to the Joint Area Review Report and Youth Service Inspection
Reports the Council with its partners has prepared an action plan to address the recommendations. This Action Plan (Annex 1) was agreed by the Children and Young People’s Trust Board on 5 March 2007.
11. The JAR inspectors made 6 recommendations to be addressed by the Council
and/or its partners and these are addressed in the Action Plan. The recommendation are:
For action over the next six months
• in relation to domestic violence, secure improvements in social care practice and the consistent implementation of the Working Together to Safeguard Children 2006 national guidelines by some community health staff to ensure that children who are affected by domestic violence are referred in line with these guidelines
• implement a coordinated joint commissioning function as soon as Health budgets for children’s services have been identified
• ensure that all services and partners who work with children and young people implement the participation strategy
• establish clear structures to enable feedback from the Independent Reviewing Officer service to systematically improve practice
• review and improve access to all services for children and young people who are unaccompanied asylum seekers; and ensure all looked after children are aware of opportunities to make a positive contribution and understand the advocacy and complaints service.
For action in the longer term • review the commissioning arrangements to improve access for children and
young people with social and communication learning difficulties and/or disabilities to therapy and equipment services.
12. The Youth Service report contains 4 areas for development. These can be
found on Page 3 of the Youth Service report and are addressed in the Action Plan. They are:
• Address health and safety issues in some centres.
C4
• Tackle inconsistencies in session planning. • Improve the quality of written evaluations by youth workers and young
people. • Further standardise quality assurance arrangements and performance
management records. 13. The Action Plan will be monitored by the Children and Young People’s Trust
Board as part of its programme to regularly monitor, evaluate and review the Children and Young People's Plan. The Children and Young People’s Partnership will also receive, and comment on, progress reports on the Action Plan.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS 14. There are no environmental implications arising directly from this report Author of the Report : Patrick Leeson, Director of Learning and Children’s Services 020 8547 5220 patrick.leeson@rbk.kingston.gov.uk Background Papers Kingston upon Thames Joint Area Review Report published 12 Dec 2006 Kingston upon Thames Youth Service Report published 12 Dec 2006
C5
Roy
al B
orou
gh o
f Kin
gsto
n up
on T
ham
es
A
NN
EX 1
Join
t Are
a R
evie
w
Enh
ance
d Yo
uth
Insp
ectio
n
Act
ion
Plan
Mar
ch 2
007
C5
C6
Intr
oduc
tion
The
Join
t Are
a R
evie
w (J
AR
) and
Enh
ance
d Y
outh
Insp
ectio
n to
ok p
lace
in K
ings
ton
in
Sep
tem
ber 2
006
and
the
insp
ectio
n re
ports
wer
e pu
blis
hed
on 1
2 D
ecem
ber 2
006.
Th
e C
ounc
il, w
ith it
s pa
rtner
s, is
requ
ired
to m
ake
a w
ritte
n st
atem
ent o
f pro
pose
d ac
tion,
or
actio
n pl
an, i
n re
spon
se to
the
reco
mm
enda
tions
in th
e re
port.
Th
e JA
R in
spec
tion
team
repo
rted
that
‘Out
com
es fo
r chi
ldre
n an
d yo
ung
peop
le in
Kin
gsto
n up
on T
ham
es a
re g
ood
in a
ll ar
eas
and
outs
tand
ing
in m
ost”
and
at th
e tim
e of
pub
licat
ion
of
the
repo
rt K
ings
ton
upon
Tha
mes
was
the
first
are
a to
be
awar
ded
a gr
ade
4 (o
utst
andi
ng) f
or
Chi
ldre
n’s
Ser
vice
s si
nce
the
JAR
insp
ectio
ns s
tarte
d in
Sep
tem
ber 2
005.
The
You
th S
ervi
ce in
spec
tors
repo
rted
that
“you
ng p
eopl
e in
Kin
gsto
n ar
e se
rved
wel
l by
a go
od y
outh
ser
vice
pro
vidi
ng g
ood
valu
e fo
r mon
ey.”
The
y ju
dged
the
You
th S
ervi
ce to
be
good
in e
very
resp
ect a
nd th
at th
ere
has
been
ver
y go
od p
rogr
ess
sinc
e th
e la
st in
spec
tion
in
2001
.
In re
spon
se to
the
Join
t Are
a R
evie
w R
epor
t and
You
th S
ervi
ce In
spec
tion
Rep
orts
the
coun
cil
with
its
partn
ers
has
prep
ared
this
act
ion
plan
to a
ddre
ss th
e re
com
men
datio
ns.
A
ll th
e ac
tions
in th
is p
lan
are
inco
rpor
ated
in th
e re
vise
d C
hild
ren
and
You
ng P
eopl
e’s
Pla
n.
The
Act
ion
Pla
n w
ill be
mon
itore
d by
the
Chi
ldre
n an
d Y
oung
Peo
ple’
s Tr
ust B
oard
as
part
of
its p
rogr
amm
e to
regu
larly
mon
itor,
eval
uate
and
revi
ew th
e C
hild
ren
and
You
ng P
eopl
e's
Pla
n. T
he C
hild
ren
and
You
ng P
eopl
e’s
Par
tner
ship
will
also
rece
ive,
and
com
men
t on,
pr
ogre
ss re
ports
on
the
Act
ion
Pla
n.
Enh
ance
d Y
outh
Ser
vice
Insp
ectio
n A
ctio
n P
lan
C7
JAR
Rec
omm
enda
tion
1 (fo
r act
ion
in n
ext 6
mon
ths
(end
Jun
e 07
)) In
rela
tion
to d
omes
tic v
iole
nce,
sec
ure
impr
ovem
ents
in s
ocia
l car
e pr
actic
e an
d th
e co
nsis
tent
impl
emen
tatio
n of
the
Wor
king
To
geth
er to
Saf
egua
rd C
hild
ren
2006
nat
iona
l gui
delin
es b
y so
me
com
mun
ity h
ealth
sta
ff to
ens
ure
that
chi
ldre
n w
ho a
re a
ffect
ed
by d
omes
tic v
iole
nce
are
refe
rred
in li
ne w
ith th
ese
guid
elin
es
Lead
Res
pons
ibili
ty: D
unca
n C
lark
M
onito
ring:
LC
SB
, CY
PP
Sta
ying
Saf
e su
b gr
oup,
CY
P T
rust
Boa
rd
Key
PIs
: %
refe
rral
s w
ith d
omes
tic v
iole
nce
as a
fact
or
% c
hild
ren
on c
hild
pro
tect
ion
regi
ster
for m
ore
than
2 y
ears
whe
re d
omes
tic v
iole
nce
as a
fact
or
% c
ore
asse
ssm
ents
with
dom
estic
vio
lenc
e as
a fa
ctor
com
plet
ed o
n tim
e an
d to
agr
eed
stan
dard
A
ctio
ns
K
ey m
ilest
ones
and
tim
esca
les
Perf
orm
ance
mea
sure
s an
d in
dica
tors
R
espo
nsib
ility
/lead
Aud
it of
dom
estic
vio
lenc
e Tr
aini
ng fo
r all
soci
al c
are
staf
f A
udit
com
plet
ed b
y Fe
brua
ry
2007
Dat
a av
aila
ble
on tr
aini
ng n
eeds
D
iane
Web
b
Del
iver
dom
estic
vio
lenc
e Tr
aini
ng to
all
soci
al c
are
staf
f Tr
aini
ng p
acka
ge d
evel
oped
an
d de
liver
ed to
sta
ff by
Jun
e 20
07
100%
soc
ial c
are
staf
f hav
e be
en tr
aine
d
100%
soc
ial c
are
staf
f abl
e to
id
entif
y an
d re
spon
d to
do
mes
tic v
iole
nce
to e
ffect
ivel
y sa
fegu
ard
child
ren
in a
co
nsis
tent
way
Dia
ne W
ebb
All
com
mun
ity h
ealth
sta
ff re
ceiv
e tra
inin
g in
Wor
king
To
geth
er a
nd d
omes
tic
viol
ence
Sta
ff m
eetin
gs s
et u
p to
del
iver
tra
inin
g by
Jun
e 20
07
100%
com
mun
ity h
ealth
sta
ff kn
ow h
ow to
resp
ond
to
dom
estic
vio
lenc
e co
ncer
ns in
a
cons
iste
nt a
nd a
ppro
pria
te w
ay
Ran
i Ste
war
t
Cas
e au
dits
und
erta
ken
on
dom
estic
vio
lenc
e ca
ses
for
Con
sist
ent i
mpl
emen
tatio
n of
pr
actic
e m
onito
red
on 6
10
0% c
ompl
ianc
e to
“goo
d pr
actic
e” s
tand
ard
for d
omes
tic
DM
T
Enh
ance
d Y
outh
Ser
vice
Insp
ectio
n A
ctio
n P
lan
C8
soci
al c
are
mon
thly
bas
is
vi
olen
ce to
ens
ure
prac
tice
is o
f a
high
qua
lity
to e
ffect
ivel
y sa
fegu
ard
child
ren
Dev
elop
loca
l gui
delin
es fo
r re
spon
ses
acro
ss a
genc
ies
Dom
estic
Vio
lenc
e S
ubgr
oup
deve
lop
guid
elin
es b
y Ju
ne
2007
Agr
eed
guid
elin
es e
stab
lishe
d an
d di
ssem
inat
ed to
dev
elop
co
nsis
tent
hig
h qu
ality
inte
r-ag
ency
wor
king
Dom
estic
Vio
lenc
e S
ubgr
oup
(Eoi
n R
ush)
JAR
Rec
omm
enda
tion
2 (fo
r act
ion
in n
ext 6
mon
ths
(end
Jun
e 07
)) Im
plem
ent a
coo
rdin
ated
join
t com
mis
sion
ing
func
tion
as s
oon
as H
ealth
bud
gets
for c
hild
ren’
s se
rvic
es h
ave
been
iden
tifie
d Le
ad R
espo
nsib
ility
: Ann
e R
edpa
rth
Mon
itorin
g: J
oint
Com
mis
sion
ing
Gro
up, C
YP
Tru
st B
oard
A
ctio
ns
Key
mile
ston
es a
nd
times
cale
s Pe
rfor
man
ce m
easu
res
and
indi
cato
rs
Res
pons
ibili
ty/le
ad
Hol
d Jo
int C
omm
issi
onin
g G
roup
Aw
ayda
y to
dev
elop
dr
aft C
omm
issi
onin
g S
trate
gy
& F
ram
ewor
k
Eve
nt h
eld
19 J
anua
ry
Rep
ort t
o Tr
ust B
oard
5 M
arch
Par
tner
s ag
ree
draf
t Stra
tegy
w
ith a
gree
d ro
les
&
resp
onsi
bilit
ies
for j
oint
pl
anni
ng &
com
mis
sion
ing
with
in T
rust
stru
ctur
e
Ann
e R
edpa
rth, D
irect
orat
e H
ead
of R
esou
rces
L&
CS
Res
ourc
es to
del
iver
Chi
ldre
n &
You
ng P
eopl
e’s
Pla
n co
nfirm
ed b
y al
l par
tner
s.
PC
T id
entif
y re
sour
ces
for
Chi
ldre
n’s
Ser
vice
s by
Apr
il 20
07.
PC
T C
omm
issi
onin
g B
udge
t fo
r Chi
ldre
n’s
Ser
vice
s 20
07-
08 c
onfir
med
, and
tota
l re
sour
ces
to d
eliv
er C
YP
P
iden
tifie
d.
Pau
la H
ead,
PC
T D
irect
or o
f S
trate
gy &
Com
mis
sion
ing.
Rev
iew
cur
rent
Joi
nt
Aud
it of
cur
rent
Joi
nt
Aud
it of
cur
rent
join
t Jo
int C
omm
issi
onin
g G
roup
Enh
ance
d Y
outh
Ser
vice
Insp
ectio
n A
ctio
n P
lan
C9
Com
mis
sion
ing
reso
urce
s C
omm
issi
onin
g re
sour
ces
com
plet
ed b
y M
arch
200
7 co
mm
issi
onin
g gr
oups
/ jo
int
wor
king
with
in T
rust
com
plet
ed(le
ad A
nne
Red
parth
)
Rev
iew
cur
rent
Joi
nt P
lann
ing
& C
omm
issi
onin
g ar
rang
emen
ts a
nd id
entif
y re
sour
ces
nece
ssar
y to
es
tabl
ish
a U
nit
Iden
tify
reso
urce
s to
est
ablis
h U
nit
Rev
iew
reco
mm
enda
tion
to
esta
blis
h a
Uni
t app
rove
d by
Tr
ust B
oard
23
Apr
il
Stru
ctur
e an
d fu
ndin
g fo
r ‘U
nit’
agre
ed
Uni
t est
ablis
hed
July
200
7
Join
t Com
mis
sion
ing
Gro
up
(lead
Ann
e R
edpa
rth)
Con
sult
on d
raft
Com
mis
sion
ing
Stra
tegy
&
Fram
ewor
k w
ith a
ll st
akeh
olde
rs
Con
sulta
tion
held
Jun
e –
July
20
07
Fram
ewor
k ap
prov
ed b
y Tr
ust
Boa
rd 3
Sep
tem
ber 2
007
Join
t Pla
nnin
g an
d C
omm
issi
onin
g S
trate
gy &
Fr
amew
ork
agre
ed b
y al
l pa
rtner
s.
Futu
re d
ecis
ions
rega
rdin
g us
e of
reso
urce
s to
del
iver
CY
PP
w
ill be
co-
ordi
nate
d an
d en
able
reso
urce
s to
be
targ
eted
to h
ighe
st p
riorit
ies,
an
d in
clud
e jo
int
de/re
/com
mis
sion
ing
of
serv
ices
.
Join
t Com
mis
sion
ing
Gro
up
(lead
Ann
e R
edpa
rth)
Enh
ance
d Y
outh
Ser
vice
Insp
ectio
n A
ctio
n P
lan
C10
JAR
Rec
omm
enda
tion
3 (fo
r act
ion
in n
ext 6
mon
ths
(end
Jun
e 07
)) E
nsur
e th
at a
ll se
rvic
es a
nd p
artn
ers
who
wor
k w
ith c
hild
ren
and
youn
g pe
ople
impl
emen
t the
par
ticip
atio
n st
rate
gy
Lead
Res
pons
ibili
ty: G
illia
n H
all
Mon
itorin
g: M
ake
a P
ositi
ve C
ontri
butio
n su
b gr
oup,
CY
P P
artn
ersh
ip, C
&Y
P T
rust
Boa
rd
Key
PIs
: N
umbe
r of k
ey is
sues
bei
ng id
entif
ied
annu
ally
by
child
ren,
you
ng p
eopl
e an
d ca
rers
that
hav
e in
fluen
ced
serv
ice
deliv
ery
N
umbe
r of F
TE p
lace
s av
aila
ble
for y
oung
peo
ple
to p
artic
ipat
e in
pos
itive
act
iviti
es d
urin
g th
e sc
hool
ho
liday
s
Act
ions
Key
mile
ston
es a
nd
times
cale
s Pe
rfor
man
ce m
easu
res
and
indi
cato
rs
Res
pons
ibili
ty/le
ad
Incl
ude
spec
ific
obje
ctiv
e in
C
hild
ren
&Y
oung
Peo
ple’
s P
artic
ipat
ion
Act
ion
Pla
n fo
r 20
07-0
8 “T
o em
bed
the
prin
cipl
es o
f pa
rtici
patio
n in
to th
e w
ork
of a
ll se
rvic
es a
nd p
artn
ers
who
w
ork
with
chi
ldre
n an
d yo
ung
peop
le”
2007
/08
Act
ion
Pla
n ag
reed
by
C&
YP
Par
tner
ship
Apr
il 20
07
By
Sep
t 200
7 id
entif
ied
lead
of
ficer
s fo
r spe
cific
act
iviti
es
repo
rt on
pro
gres
s to
P
artic
ipat
ion
Ste
erin
g G
roup
Par
ticip
atio
n A
ctio
n P
lan
circ
ulat
ed to
C&
YP
Par
tner
ship
Ta
rget
s in
Act
ion
Pla
n ac
hiev
ed
Gill
ian
Hal
l G
illian
Hal
l and
Par
ticip
atio
n S
teer
ing
Gro
up
Incr
ease
the
rang
e of
m
embe
rs o
n th
e P
artic
ipat
ion
Ste
erin
g G
roup
Lead
/nam
ed p
erso
n fro
m
polic
e, h
ealth
and
oth
er
depa
rtmen
ts w
ithin
RB
K a
re
mem
bers
of
Par
ticip
atio
n S
teer
ing
Gro
up b
y Ju
ne 2
007
Targ
ets
iden
tifie
d in
200
7/08
P
artic
ipat
ion
Act
ion
Pla
n w
ith
rega
rd to
oth
er C
ounc
il se
rvic
es a
nd p
artn
er a
genc
ies
achi
eved
.
Gill
ian
Hal
l
Est
ablis
h fo
rmal
pro
cedu
re to
en
gage
with
non
-sta
tuto
ry
sect
or w
ith re
gard
to
Par
ticip
atio
n of
chi
ldre
n an
d
Iden
tify
lead
nam
ed p
erso
n fro
m K
ings
ton
Gra
nts
Uni
t to
be m
embe
r of
Par
ticip
atio
n S
teer
ing
Gro
up b
y M
ay 2
007
Info
rmat
ion
is d
isse
min
ated
to
volu
ntar
y se
ctor
in s
truct
ured
w
ay.
Gilli
an H
all/L
ead
pers
on
Gra
nts
Uni
t
Enh
ance
d Y
outh
Ser
vice
Insp
ectio
n A
ctio
n P
lan
C11
youn
g pe
ople
. Fo
rmal
pro
cess
for e
ngag
ing
volu
ntar
y se
ctor
agr
eed
by
Sep
t 200
7
Targ
ets
iden
tifie
d in
200
7/08
P
artic
ipat
ion
Act
ion
Pla
n w
ith
rega
rd to
Vol
unta
ry/n
on
stat
utor
y se
ctor
ach
ieve
d.
JAR
Rec
omm
enda
tion
4 (fo
r act
ion
in n
ext 6
mon
ths
(end
Jun
e 07
)) E
stab
lish
clea
r stru
ctur
es to
ena
ble
feed
back
from
the
Inde
pend
ent R
evie
win
g O
ffice
r ser
vice
to s
yste
mat
ical
ly im
prov
e pr
actic
e
Lead
Res
pons
ibili
ty: D
unca
n C
lark
M
onito
ring:
LC
SB
, Sta
ying
Saf
e su
b gr
oup,
CY
P T
rust
Boa
rd
Key
PIs
: %
LA
C w
ho re
gula
rly c
ontr
ibut
e to
thei
r sta
tuto
ry re
view
%
full
time
LAC
dis
able
d ch
ildre
n pr
ovid
ed w
ith a
n ac
cess
ible
con
sulta
tion
form
at fo
r the
ir re
view
s A
ctio
ns
Key
mile
ston
es a
nd
times
cale
s Pe
rfor
man
ce m
easu
res
and
indi
cato
rs
Res
pons
ibili
ty/le
ad
Est
ablis
h a
clea
r pro
toco
l for
re
porti
ng c
once
rns
rega
rdin
g C
hild
ren’
s P
lace
men
ts.
Pro
toco
l agr
eed
by M
ay 2
007
100%
of c
once
rns
repo
rted
are
acte
d up
on to
ens
ure
child
ren
are
plac
ed in
saf
e an
d po
sitiv
e en
viro
nmen
ts.
Dia
ne W
ebb/
Tim
Wel
ls
List
enin
g to
chi
ldre
n to
geth
er –
IR
O/S
ocia
l Wor
ker W
orks
hop
List
enin
g to
chi
ldre
n pr
otoc
ol
agre
ed b
y A
pril
2007
E
vide
nce
of im
prov
ed
com
mun
icat
ion
betw
een
child
ren,
you
ng p
eopl
e, s
ocia
l w
orke
r and
IRO
s
Tim
Wel
ls
Ens
ure
quar
terly
IRO
m
onito
ring
mee
tings
rout
inel
y in
clud
e pr
actic
e de
velo
pmen
t an
d re
view
as
a st
andi
ng
agen
da it
em.
Am
end
Term
s of
Ref
eren
ce fo
r IR
O q
uarte
rly m
onito
ring
mee
tings
by
Te
rms
of re
fere
nce
agre
ed a
nd
sign
ed o
ff by
Jun
e 20
07
Goo
d ou
tcom
es fo
r chi
ldre
n ar
e ac
hiev
ed b
y th
e pr
oact
ive
iden
tific
atio
n of
issu
es b
y th
e IR
O ro
le a
nd u
nder
stoo
d by
an
d ac
ted
upon
. 10
0% o
f ide
ntifi
ed p
ract
ice
deve
lopm
ent i
ssue
s ar
e ac
ted
Tim
Wel
ls a
nd D
iane
Web
b
Enh
ance
d Y
outh
Ser
vice
Insp
ectio
n A
ctio
n P
lan
C12
upon
E
nsur
e al
l LA
C c
hild
ren
have
co
mm
unic
atio
n &
con
sulta
tion
prof
ile c
ompl
eted
.
Agr
ee s
peci
ficat
ion
for L
AC
co
mm
unic
atio
n pr
ofile
by
June
20
07.
Eng
age
youn
g pe
ople
in
desi
gnin
g th
e fo
rmat
. D
esig
n an
d ag
ree
form
at a
nd
para
met
ers
by S
ept 2
007
100%
of a
gree
d co
mm
unic
atio
n pr
ofile
s ar
e de
sign
ed a
nd im
plem
ente
d to
en
able
LA
C to
hav
e th
eir v
iew
s he
ard.
Tim
Wel
ls
JAR
Rec
omm
enda
tion
5 (fo
r act
ion
in n
ext 6
mon
ths
(end
Jun
e 07
)) R
evie
w a
nd im
prov
e ac
cess
to a
ll se
rvic
es fo
r chi
ldre
n an
d yo
ung
peop
le w
ho a
re u
nacc
ompa
nied
asy
lum
see
kers
; and
ens
ure
all
look
ed a
fter c
hild
ren
are
awar
e of
opp
ortu
nitie
s to
mak
e a
posi
tive
cont
ribut
ion
and
unde
rsta
nd th
e ad
voca
cy a
nd c
ompl
aint
s se
rvic
e.
Lead
Res
pons
ibili
ty: D
unca
n C
lark
M
onito
ring:
LS
CB
, Sta
ying
Saf
e su
b gr
oup,
Mak
e a
posi
tive
cont
ribut
ion
sub
grou
p, C
YP
Tru
st B
oard
K
ey P
Is:
% U
ASC
livi
ng in
sui
tabl
e ac
com
mod
atio
n
%
UA
SC w
ho s
it at
leas
t 1 G
CSE
ach
ievi
ng a
t lea
st 1
A*-
G
% U
ASC
in E
ET
Act
ions
K
ey m
ilest
ones
and
tim
esca
les
Perf
orm
ance
mea
sure
s an
d in
dica
tors
R
espo
nsib
ility
/lead
UA
SC
acc
omm
odat
ion,
adv
ice
and
finan
cial
ass
ista
nce
are
inte
grat
ed w
ith L
AC
and
Car
e Le
aver
s ar
rang
emen
ts.
Join
t fin
anci
al a
ssis
tanc
e pr
oced
ures
and
gui
danc
e ag
reed
by
May
200
7
100%
of U
AS
C re
ceiv
e ag
reed
fin
anci
al a
ssis
tanc
e re
gula
rly.
By
May
200
7 10
0% o
f UA
SC
in F
E re
ceiv
e a
regu
lar E
duca
tion
Mai
nten
ance
Allo
wan
ce
Tim
Wel
ls
Incr
ease
UA
SC
ac
com
mod
atio
n op
tions
. E
ngag
e w
ith p
rovi
ders
thro
ugh
LAS
C a
nd p
rovi
de a
ppro
pria
te
All
UA
SC
are
in m
ore
appr
opria
te a
nd
sust
aina
ble
plac
emen
ts
Tim
Wel
ls
Enh
ance
d Y
outh
Ser
vice
Insp
ectio
n A
ctio
n P
lan
C13
loca
l acc
omm
odat
ion
by M
arch
20
07
End
use
of K
alei
dosc
ope
YA
SK
Hos
tel b
y Ju
ne 2
007
Est
ablis
h a
prot
ocol
with
ho
usin
g re
gard
ing
acce
ss to
su
stai
ned
tena
ncie
s fo
r elig
ible
U
AS
C w
ho a
re C
are
Leav
ers
Dra
ft ac
com
mod
atio
n pa
thw
ay
for U
AS
C a
s fo
r all
care
le
aver
s ag
reed
by
May
200
7 Fo
reca
st a
nd a
gree
hou
sing
no
min
atio
ns fo
r all
care
le
aver
s in
clud
ing
UA
SC
.
Onc
e el
igib
le fo
r pub
lic h
ousi
ng U
AS
C
are
equa
lly re
pres
ente
d w
ithin
the
hous
ing
nom
inat
ion
quot
e fo
r car
e le
aver
s an
d pa
thw
ay a
gree
d
Tim
Wel
ls
Rev
iew
, rev
ise
and
re-la
unch
LA
C c
ompl
aint
s pr
oces
ses
to
take
full
acco
unt o
f nee
ds o
f U
ASC
Com
plai
nts
path
way
for L
AC
an
d C
are
Leav
ers
agre
ed b
y M
ay 2
007
Num
ber o
f com
plai
nts
rece
ived
N
umbe
r of c
ompl
aint
s re
ceiv
ed fr
om
UA
SC
as
a %
of t
otal
10
0% o
f com
plai
nts
from
UA
SC
act
ed
on a
ppro
pria
tely
Tim
Wel
ls
JAR
Rec
omm
enda
tion
6 (fo
r act
ion
in th
e lo
nger
term
) R
evie
w th
e co
mm
issi
onin
g ar
rang
emen
ts to
impr
ove
acce
ss fo
r chi
ldre
n an
d yo
ung
peop
le w
ith s
ocia
l and
com
mun
icat
ion
lear
ning
di
fficu
lties
and
/or d
isab
ilitie
s to
ther
apy
and
equi
pmen
t ser
vice
s Le
ad R
espo
nsib
ility
: Dun
can
Cla
rk
Mon
itorin
g: S
tayi
ng S
afe
sub
grou
p, J
oint
Com
mis
sion
ing
Gro
up, C
YP
Tru
st B
oard
K
ey P
Is:
% c
hild
ren
wai
ting
less
than
12
mon
ths
for a
sses
smen
t and
dia
gnos
is o
f soc
ial a
nd c
omm
unic
atio
n di
fficu
lties
%
whe
re a
vera
ge w
aitin
g tim
e fo
r the
rapi
es is
less
than
4 m
onth
s A
ctio
ns
K
ey m
ilest
ones
and
tim
esca
les
Perf
orm
ance
mea
sure
s an
d in
dica
tors
R
espo
nsib
ility
/lead
Dev
elop
a s
trate
gy to
redu
ce
wai
ting
times
for d
iagn
osis
A
gree
stra
tegy
to r
educ
e A
SD
w
aitin
g tim
es b
y A
pril
2008
10
0% c
hild
ren
asse
ssed
and
di
agno
sed
with
in 1
2 m
onth
s M
ike
Cor
rigan
S
teve
Sim
per
Enh
ance
d Y
outh
Ser
vice
Insp
ectio
n A
ctio
n P
lan
C14
Ave
rage
wai
ting
time
no m
ore
than
4
mon
ths
Dev
elop
a th
erap
y st
rate
gy fo
r di
sabl
ed c
hild
ren
in
partn
ersh
ip w
ith a
ll st
akeh
olde
rs
Fund
ing
for s
trate
gy
deve
lopm
ent a
gree
d by
end
M
ay 2
007
Focu
s gr
oup
incl
udin
g pa
rent
s to
sha
pe s
trate
gy b
y en
d of
Ju
n 07
P
repa
re c
onsu
ltatio
n do
cum
ent b
y en
d A
ugus
t 200
7 (6
wee
k co
nsul
tatio
n).
Agr
ee s
trate
gy w
ith
stak
ehol
ders
by
end
Oct
07
Ther
apy
wai
ts fo
r chi
ldre
n re
duce
d
Mik
e C
orrig
an
Ext
end
Loca
l Aut
horit
y’s
equi
pmen
t ser
vice
for c
hild
ren
to in
clud
e he
alth
ther
apis
ts
Map
ping
of h
ealth
equ
ipm
ent
path
way
s by
end
Aug
ust 2
008
Agr
ee fu
ndin
g w
ith P
CT
by
end
Nov
embe
r 200
8 R
e- n
egot
iatio
n of
soc
ial c
are
curr
ent e
quip
men
t con
tract
w
ith c
omm
unity
car
e se
rvic
es
by e
nd D
ecem
ber 2
008
Pol
icie
s an
d pr
oced
ures
for
inte
grat
ed s
ervi
ce b
y en
d M
ar
2009
Ser
vice
acc
esse
d ac
ross
all
setti
ngs
usin
g co
mm
on p
olic
y an
d pr
oced
ures
C
hild
ren
can
live
posi
tive
and
activ
e liv
es b
y re
ceiv
ing
the
requ
ired
equi
pmen
t in
a tim
ely
way
Mik
e C
orrig
an
Enh
ance
d Y
outh
Ser
vice
Insp
ectio
n A
ctio
n P
lan
C15
Con
tract
in p
lace
by
1 A
pr
2009
Im
prov
e ac
cess
to th
erap
ies
for c
hild
ren
outs
ide
the
inte
grat
ed d
isab
led
child
ren’
s se
rvic
e
Red
uce
inap
prop
riate
refe
rral
s by
Apr
il 20
08
Use
scr
eeni
ng to
ol in
all
rece
ptio
n cl
asse
s by
Jul
y 20
08
Incr
ease
ther
apy
inpu
t to
clin
ics
by D
ec 2
007
Chi
ldre
n ag
ed 0
-5 w
ill be
ass
esse
d w
ithin
13
wee
ks o
f ref
erra
l R
educ
e th
e nu
mbe
r of p
upils
goi
ng o
ut
of b
orou
gh fo
r spe
cial
ist s
peec
h an
d la
ngua
ge p
rovi
sion
R
educ
e th
e nu
mbe
r of
stat
utor
y as
sess
men
ts fo
r spe
ech
and
lang
uage
as
sess
men
ts
J E
ly
K B
enne
t
Yout
h Se
rvic
e A
rea
for i
mpr
ovem
ent 1
A
ddre
ss H
ealth
and
Saf
ety
issu
es in
som
e C
entre
s
Lead
Res
pons
ibili
ty: G
illia
n H
all
Mon
itorin
g: R
BK
Hea
lth a
nd S
afet
y O
ffice
r A
ctio
ns
Key
mile
ston
es a
nd
times
cale
s Pe
rfor
man
ce m
easu
res
and
indi
cato
rs
Res
pons
ibili
ty/le
ad
Sea
rchl
ight
You
th C
entre
–
Bar
bed
wire
to b
e ta
ken
dow
n fro
m ro
of
Wor
k co
mm
issi
oned
and
un
derta
ken
– O
ctob
er 2
006
Wor
k co
mpl
eted
S
atis
fact
ory
repo
rt fro
m H
ealth
an
d S
afet
y O
ffice
r
Ela
ine
Cou
lon
Dic
kera
ge A
dven
ture
P
layg
roun
d –
Red
esig
n ca
r pa
rk a
rea.
Sur
vey
unde
rtake
n by
pro
perty
se
rvic
es –
Oct
ober
200
6 W
ork
Com
mis
sion
ed –
D
ecem
ber 2
006
Sur
vey
com
plet
ed
Wor
k co
mm
issi
oned
Ela
ine
Cou
lon
Enh
ance
d Y
outh
Ser
vice
Insp
ectio
n A
ctio
n P
lan
C16
Wor
k to
be
carri
ed o
ut in
Apr
il as
par
t of 2
007/
08 c
apita
l pr
ogra
mm
e
New
ly d
esig
ned
car p
ark
area
op
erat
iona
l. S
atis
fact
ory
repo
rt fro
m H
ealth
an
d S
afet
y O
ffice
r Yo
uth
Serv
ice
Insp
ectio
n A
reas
for i
mpr
ovem
ent 2
, 3 a
nd 4
Ta
ckle
inco
nsis
tenc
ies
in s
essi
on p
lann
ing
Impr
ove
the
qual
ity o
f writ
ten
eval
uatio
ns b
y yo
uth
wor
kers
and
you
ng p
eopl
e Fu
rther
sta
ndar
dise
qua
lity
assu
ranc
e ar
rang
emen
ts a
nd p
erfo
rman
ce m
anag
emen
t rec
ords
. Le
ad R
espo
nsib
ility
: G
illia
n H
all
Mon
itorin
g: C
hild
ren
and
You
ng P
eopl
e’s
Par
tner
ship
K
ey P
Is:
% y
outh
ser
vice
par
ticip
ants
ach
ievi
ng a
ccre
dite
d aw
ard
% y
outh
ser
vice
par
ticip
ants
ach
ievi
ng a
ccre
dite
d ou
tcom
es
Act
ions
K
ey m
ilest
ones
and
tim
esca
les
Perf
orm
ance
indi
cato
rs
Res
pons
ibili
ty/le
ad
Impl
emen
t Rev
ised
Ses
sion
P
lann
ing
She
et t
hrou
ghou
t the
se
rvic
e
Pla
nnin
g sh
eets
to b
e re
view
ed b
y fu
ll tim
e te
am b
y Fe
b. 2
007
New
form
to b
e di
strib
uted
ac
ross
Tea
ms
by M
arch
200
7 H
old
wor
ksho
p fo
r sta
ff in
Apr
il 20
07
Incl
ude
new
form
in n
ew
Indu
ctio
n P
ack
for s
taff
New
ses
sion
pla
nnin
g sh
eet
bein
g im
plem
ente
d co
nsis
tent
ly a
cros
s th
e se
rvic
e.
100%
of s
taff
subm
it ag
reed
P
lann
ing
She
et fr
om S
umm
er
Term
200
7.
Ser
vice
mon
itorin
g w
ill ev
iden
ce th
at 1
00%
sta
ff pl
an
sess
ions
in li
ne w
ith a
gree
d re
quire
men
ts
Dav
id B
rack
en
Enh
ance
d Y
outh
Ser
vice
Insp
ectio
n A
ctio
n P
lan
C17
Pla
nnin
g sh
eet u
sed
by s
taff
from
sum
mer
term
E
valu
atio
n tra
inin
g in
pla
ce fo
r yo
uth
wor
kers
R
evie
w o
f exi
stin
g ev
alua
tions
un
derta
ken
in M
arch
200
7 an
d ar
eas
for d
evel
opm
ent i
n ev
alua
tions
iden
tifie
d.
Pee
r dis
cuss
ions
and
w
orks
hops
on
Eva
luat
ions
in
Mar
ch 2
007
and
area
s fo
r fu
rther
tra
inin
g/re
view
id
entif
ied
Eva
luat
ion
incl
uded
in 2
007/
08
You
th S
ervi
ce T
rain
ing
Pro
gram
me.
100%
Sta
ff at
tend
ance
at
train
ing
even
t. 10
0% s
taff
subm
it ap
prop
riate
an
d in
form
ativ
e ev
alua
tions
Dav
id B
rack
en
Impr
ove
qual
ity o
f writ
ten
eval
uatio
ns b
y yo
ung
peop
le
Rev
iew
exi
stin
g re
sour
ces
in
rela
tion
to fe
edba
ck fr
om
youn
g pe
ople
– A
pril
200
7 Id
entif
y ne
w a
nd a
ppro
pria
te
reso
urce
s fo
r fee
dbac
k fro
m
youn
g pe
ople
– A
pril
2007
D
etai
ls o
f res
ourc
es to
be
circ
ulat
ed to
sta
ff –
June
200
7 Id
entif
y A
QA
for y
oung
peo
ple
in re
latio
n to
ev
alua
tion/
feed
back
Num
bers
of y
oung
peo
ple
gain
ing
accr
edite
d ou
tcom
e in
ev
alua
tion
100%
sta
ff at
tend
ance
at
train
ing
even
t. In
crea
se in
num
ber o
f you
ng
peop
le p
rovi
ding
writ
ten
feed
back
. N
umbe
r of e
valu
atio
ns b
y yo
ung
peop
le w
hich
lead
to
impr
ovem
ents
in s
essi
ons
Dav
id B
rack
en
Enh
ance
d Y
outh
Ser
vice
Insp
ectio
n A
ctio
n P
lan
C18
Incl
ude
Feed
back
from
you
ng
peop
le a
s pa
rt of
trai
ning
for
part
time
and
full
time
staf
f in
2000
7/08
trai
ning
pla
n.
Impr
ove
perfo
rman
ce
man
agem
ent r
ecor
ds
Rev
iew
of p
ossi
ble
yout
h se
rvic
e m
anag
emen
t in
form
atio
n sy
stem
s un
derta
ken
in J
anua
ry 2
007
Sho
rt lis
t of p
rovi
ders
pre
sent
to
pan
el o
f RB
K s
taff
from
C
hild
ren
& L
earn
ing
Ser
vice
s an
d IC
T in
Apr
il 2
007
New
MI s
yste
m id
entif
ied
by
May
200
7 an
d co
ntra
ct fo
r pu
rcha
se a
gree
d.
Act
ion
Pla
n in
pla
ce fo
r in
stal
latio
n, tr
aini
ng a
nd
impl
emen
tatio
n of
new
sys
tem
–
June
200
7
New
NI s
yste
m in
pla
ce
prov
idin
g m
ore
deta
iled
info
rmat
ion
avai
labl
e to
info
rm
plan
ning
Gill
ian
Hal
l
APPENDIX D Executive, 20 March 2007
LOCAL AREA AGREEMENT Report by the Chief Executive Leader of the Council and Executive Member for Improvement and Performance Purpose Following on from previous reports on the Local Area Agreement (LAA) submitted to the Executive on 21 March 2006, when it approved our LAA 2006/09, this report seeks approval of the annual refresh of the LAA targets following the successful conclusion of negotiations with Central Government. Action proposed by the Leader of the Council and Executive Member for Improvement & Performance: The Executive is requested to approve on behalf of the Council the refresh of Kingston’s Local Area Agreement. Reason for action proposed To approve the updated Local Area Agreement.
BACKGROUND 1 Kingston’s Local Area Agreement (LAA) is a three year agreement that started in April
2006. It is an agreement between: central government, represented by our Government Office (Government Office London); a local area, represented by the local authority; the Local Strategic Partnership (the Community Leadership Forum) and other key partners at local level. Taken together nationally, LAAs will better enable local authorities and their partners to deliver national outcomes in a way that reflects local priorities.
2 Our LAA is founded on our community aspirations for our local area and plays a key
role in fulfilling our role as a Community Leader. The priorities in our LAA are drawn from our Policy Programme and our Community Plan. Our 12 LAA priorities are sub divided into outcomes that provide a flexible framework for public, private and voluntary and community sector partners in Kingston to work together and to prioritise spending to achieve the outcomes identified. The outcomes are supported by a comprehensive set of performance indicators drawn from all partners that are used to measure progress towards achieving these shared outcomes and so communities’ aspirations.
3 Not only does the LAA reflect and extend our Community Plan by being its practical
expression or action plan, but the recent publication of the Government White Paper ‘Strong and Prosperous Communities’ makes it clear that central government intend that LAAs will be central to how our delivery through partnership is structured and assessed in future.
4 The Kingston LAA has been developed and overseen by the Community Leadership
Strategy Group (CLSG) which is chaired by the Leader of the Council, and which includes representatives from key partner agencies such as the Police and the Primary Care Trust, as well as from the local voluntary and community sector and
D2
from the local business community. Henceforth, it is intended that the Executive and the CLSG meet together twice annually, and it is proposed that the first such meeting be held in May/June when the LAA and its future development would be one of the main items for discussion.
5 The refresh of the LAA is an annual activity which reviews the outcome framework
and allows changes in national or local priorities to be reflected in and targets and indicators to ensure the agreement remains up to date. The Executive is now being asked to sign off the refresh of the agreement.
OBJECTIVES OF THE LAA 6 The primary objective of an LAA is to deliver genuinely sustainable communities
through better outcomes for local people. Kingston has been at the forefront of the campaign for more freedom for local partners to deliver a local vision and LAAs are, in large part, the government’s response. The White Paper ‘Strong and Prosperous Communities’ takes this agenda to the next stage and places greater emphasis on the Council's community leadership role and capacity for place shaping.
7 LAAs also have the secondary objectives of:
- Improving central and local government relations;
- Enhancing efficiency;
- Strengthening partnership working;
- Offering a framework within which local authorities can enhance their community leadership role.
8 We have particularly championed and welcomed the reduction in performance
management proposed in the LAA, not just for the Council but for our partners too. The concept was that by putting more focus on a locally negotiated LAA, which represented what was agreed to be most important locally, other targets, reporting and assessment requirements could fall away. We have particularly welcomed this as correcting some of the weaknesses of Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) which we see as increasingly based on standardised sets of performance indicators and box ticking requirements that give little insight about how well we are driving improvement in our local context. We remain concerned that the desired cultural shift in central/local government relations and promised lightening of the reporting burden has not yet been forthcoming.
9 At the moment there is an additional concern that, for a Council so recently judged
through its Corporate Assessment and Joint Area Review as performing well the Government Office for London (GOL) is developing the LAA, as a parallel performance management regime and taking a role towards us that has not previously existed. As a result, there is the perception that rather than having the burden lifted, we face an additional level of performance assessment. Moreover, there is a danger that this system is just as rigid and resource intensive, despite the rhetoric of Strong and Prosperous Communities.
D3
THE REFRESH 10 The negotiation of a Local Area Agreement is a potentially complex process involving
numerous stakeholders both at the local level and within Central Government. This is the first refresh of LAAs nationally managed by Government Offices so the extent of changes undertaken has been more limited than we would anticipate in future.
11 The refresh of the LAA has enabled the completion of those parts of the LAA where
information or data was not available when the LAA was signed off in March 2006. Where gaps in the agreement have been identified these have been filled and targets set where they were to be agreed. In particular the refreshed agreement includes the finally negotiated 12 stretch targets, a more comprehensive range of health indicators for both young people and adults and a respect outcome to improve community safety. Other changes are technical and include bringing LAA targets in line with targets in the Children and Young Peoples’ Plan.
12 Attached is a schedule showing the LAA outcomes and targets with the refreshed
data added (ANNEX 1). Those items in bold show the changes made. Please note that, as the 2005/06 outturn figures are added, some of the future years’ targets negotiated during 2005 now appear to represent a drop compared to our most recent performance. However, the targets were set as a three year improvement profile in those key performance areas and have not been renewed. It is inevitable then that we have out-performed expectations in some areas during 2005/06, however, this does not necessarily mean that it will be possible in all cases to sustain such increases in future years.
THE APPROVAL PROCESS 13 The new partnership governance arrangements for our four areas of strategic
partnership work are now substantially in place and their work is being joined up by the Partnership Delivery Board. Our four partnership areas are currently termed: Safer and Strong Communities (the Crime and Disorder Partnership (CDRP)); Children and Young People (the Children and Young Peoples’ Partnership (CYPP)); Adult Health and Wellbeing (the Adult Health and Wellbeing Board (AHWB)); and Sustainable Communities for partnerships working in the sustainable environment area where arrangements at still under development.
14 All the LAA outcomes have a home in one of the strategic partnerships. Each
partnership delivery group identifies and agrees with its partners its input into the LAA and manages its range of targets, indicators and outcomes to deliver against its own priorities. Priorities are established by local negotiations led by GOL and accommodate both national and local priorities. Once agreed these are joined up under our LAA priorities to form the full agreement.
15 We submitted our final LAA refresh proposals to Government Office by the January
deadline. GOL then get these agreed with central departments and make any final adjustments so the agreement can be signed off in March for the next year. The next step is the formal signing off of the refreshed agreements which is due to happen by the end of March. On the Government side, GOL will make a recommendation to the Department of Communities and Local Government on each LAA.
16 Local arrangements to sign up to the LAA should take place in parallel with the
Whitehall clearance process. So individual members of the Kingston Community
D4
Leadership Forum and through the strategic partnerships will, where necessary, seek formal agreement of their respective organisations.
17 In signing off the refreshed Local Area Agreement, the Executive is advised that we
will be scrutinising closely how the relationship with GOL develops and the way that the LAA is managed and will report back further to the Executive if further issues arise that require their consideration and action.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS 18 There are no direct environmental implications but the LAA includes a number of
priority outcomes that reflect the Council’s wider agenda on environmental issues. Background Papers Held by Chris Field 020 8547 5010 or chris.field@rbk.kingston.gov.uk (author of report)-
1. Local Area Agreements, Guidance for Refresh , published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister
2. Local Area Agreements – progress reports to Executive, 18 October 2005 & 17 January 2006 and 21 March 2006
D5
LAA
OU
TCO
ME
S A
ND
TA
RG
ETS
AN
NE
X 1
Out
com
eP
erfo
rman
ce M
easu
re /
Indi
cato
rR
efre
sh
Bas
elin
eP
erfo
rman
ce
Enh
ance
men
tC
omm
ents
2004
/05
2005
/06
2006
/07
2007
/08
With
out
Rew
ard
With
R
ewar
d
i. #
who
gai
n em
ploy
men
t15
*18
20*e
stim
ate
ii. %
sus
tain
em
ploy
men
t for
a p
erio
d of
4 w
eeks
75%
*78
%80
%*e
stim
ate
iii. #
sta
rt w
ith a
Tut
or o
n a
Bas
ic S
kills
A
war
d45
*50
55*e
stim
ate
iv. #
gai
n a
Bas
ic S
kills
Aw
ard
6*8
10*e
stim
ate
# Pr
iorit
y an
d Pr
olifi
c O
ffend
ers
47*
42*
38*
*10%
redu
ctio
n - t
o be
fina
lised
onc
e 06
/07
outtu
rn
% y
oung
offe
nder
s52
.50%
49.9
%*
*for
det
ail s
ee re
fresh
te
mpl
ate
i. #
of t
hefts
of m
otor
veh
icle
s33
637
034
8ii.
# o
f the
fts fr
om m
otor
veh
icle
s93
858
055
1iii
. # o
f mot
or v
ehic
le in
terfe
renc
es47
7271
iv. #
of d
omes
tic b
urgl
arie
s62
641
540
3v.
# o
f the
fts o
f ped
al c
ycle
s85
967
063
6vi
. # o
f inc
iden
ts o
f crim
inal
dam
age
2785
2522
2371
vii.
# of
wou
ndin
gs (A
BH
& G
BH
)17
8011
2010
52vi
ii. #
of c
omm
on a
ssau
lts74
010
9910
33ix
. # o
f the
fts p
erso
n –
pick
poc
ketin
g an
d 43
337
336
1x.
# o
f rob
berie
s of
per
sona
l pro
perty
316
223
221
i. %
of r
esid
ents
who
say
they
feel
ver
y or
fa
irly
unsa
fe o
utsi
de a
fter d
ark
43n/
a42
41.5
Res
iden
ts s
urve
y 20
05
ii. %
of l
ocal
resi
dent
s w
ho s
ay th
ey fe
el
satis
fied
with
thei
r loc
al e
nviro
nmen
t 68
n/a
6970
Res
iden
ts s
urve
y 20
05
iii. %
sat
isfa
ctio
n w
ith v
isib
le p
olic
ing
-
satis
fact
ion
with
the
way
in w
hich
the
area
is
pol
iced
- sat
ifact
ion
with
the
frequ
ency
of
foot
/bic
ycle
pat
rols
28n/
a32
35R
esid
ents
sur
vey
2005
- P
ublic
Atti
tude
S
urve
y 20
05/2
006
Out
turn
1.1a
(i) T
o re
duce
crim
e, th
e ha
rm c
ause
d by
ille
gal d
rugs
, and
to re
assu
re th
e pu
blic
, red
ucin
g th
e fe
ar o
f crim
e
(ii)
SS
C1:
Red
uctio
n in
crim
e by
15%
and
m
ore
in h
igh
crim
e ar
eas
by 2
007/
08 a
s m
easu
red
thro
ugh
the
PS
A1
bask
et o
f in
dica
tors
(loc
al ta
rget
17.
5% o
ver t
hree
ye
ars
base
d on
200
3-04
bas
elin
e)
1. S
AFE
R C
OM
MU
NIT
IES
1. R
educ
e C
rime
(for
det
ail s
ee re
fres
h te
mpl
ate)
2008
/09
Per
form
ance
Tar
gets
b. #
of a
dults
sub
ject
to P
roba
tion
Com
mun
ity S
uper
visi
on o
r Lic
ence
s w
ho, d
urin
g th
eir p
erio
d of
su
perv
isio
n/lic
ence
:
a. R
educ
e th
e pr
opor
tion
of a
dult
and
youn
g of
fend
ers
and
prol
ific
and
othe
r pr
iorit
y of
fend
ers
who
re-o
ffend
1.1b
Bui
ld re
spec
t in
com
mun
ities
and
re
duce
ant
i soc
ial b
ehav
iour
D6
LAA
OU
TCO
ME
S A
ND
TA
RG
ETS
AN
NE
X 1
Out
com
eP
erfo
rman
ce M
easu
re /
Indi
cato
rR
efre
sh
Bas
elin
eP
erfo
rman
ce
Enh
ance
men
tC
omm
ents
2004
/05
2005
/06
2006
/07
2007
/08
With
out
Rew
ard
With
R
ewar
d
Out
turn
2008
/09
Per
form
ance
Tar
gets
iv. I
ncre
ase
% o
f peo
ple
who
feel
in
form
ed a
bout
wha
t is
bein
g do
ne to
ta
ckle
ASB
in th
eir a
rea
awai
ting
LGU
SS
tba
tba
Res
iden
ts s
urve
y
v. In
crea
sed
% o
f peo
ple
who
feel
that
pa
rent
s in
thei
r loc
al a
ra a
re m
ade
to
take
resp
onsi
bilit
y fo
r the
beh
avio
ur o
f th
eir c
hild
ren
awai
ting
LGU
SS
tba
tba
Res
iden
ts s
urve
y
vi. I
ncre
ased
% o
f peo
ple
who
feel
that
pe
ople
in th
eir a
rea
trea
t the
m w
ith
resp
ect a
nd c
onsi
dera
tion
42n/
aaw
aitin
g LG
US
Stb
atb
aR
esid
ents
sur
vey
vii.
Red
uce
peop
le's
per
cept
ion
of A
SB
(usi
ng th
e 7
issu
es s
tate
d in
the
surv
ey)
awai
ting
LGU
SS
tba
tba
i. #
of C
omm
unity
Ord
ers
with
DR
Rs*
4136
40ii.
# o
f com
plet
ed C
omm
unity
Ord
ers
with
D
RR
s*10
1315
iii. #
of s
anct
ion
dete
ctio
ns a
gain
st th
ose
who
unl
awfu
lly s
uppl
y co
ntro
lled
drug
s37
4545
Rev
iew
ed a
nnua
lly
vi. H
ow m
uch
loca
l dru
g de
alin
g an
d dr
ug u
se is
see
n as
a p
robl
em in
the
loca
l are
a
awai
ting
LGU
SS
tba
tba
Sur
vey
i. #
of h
ouse
hold
s ac
cept
ed a
s ho
mel
ess
as a
resu
lt of
DV
and
oth
er
actu
al/th
reat
ened
vio
lenc
e
(a) F
rom
add
ress
es in
the
boro
ugh
1537
45S
chem
e co
mm
ence
d 06
/07
(b
) In
tota
l53
132
160
Ann
ual f
igur
es fo
r 20
04/0
5ii.
# (c
umul
ativ
e) o
f man
agem
ent t
rans
fers
ap
prov
ed a
s a
resu
lt of
dom
estic
vio
lenc
e an
d ot
her h
ate
crim
e
1741
50A
nnua
l fig
ure
for
cale
ndar
yea
r 200
5
1.1b
(con
tinui
ng to
) Bui
ld re
spec
t
1.1c
Red
uce
the
harm
cau
sed
by il
lega
l dr
ugs
1.2a
Pro
vide
hou
sing
sup
port
to v
ictim
s of
ha
te c
rime
(incl
udin
g do
mes
tic v
iole
nce)
D7
LAA
OU
TCO
ME
S A
ND
TA
RG
ETS
AN
NE
X 1
Out
com
eP
erfo
rman
ce M
easu
re /
Indi
cato
rR
efre
sh
Bas
elin
eP
erfo
rman
ce
Enh
ance
men
tC
omm
ents
2004
/05
2005
/06
2006
/07
2007
/08
With
out
Rew
ard
With
R
ewar
d
Out
turn
2008
/09
Per
form
ance
Tar
gets
iii. #
(cum
ulat
ive)
of n
ew s
anct
uary
pl
acem
ents
with
in th
e bo
roug
h0
1.2b
* S
uppo
rt th
e vi
ctim
s do
mes
tic
viol
ence
% o
f inc
iden
ts o
f dom
estic
vio
lenc
e re
porte
d to
the
polic
e w
hich
resu
lt in
sa
nctio
ned
dete
ctio
ns
20.9
3437
(+3)
7 pe
rcen
tage
po
ints
(c
umul
ativ
e)
see
full
targ
et
defin
ition
1.4*
Mor
e ef
fect
ive
and
endu
ring
drug
tre
atm
ent p
rogr
amm
esi.
# (c
umul
ativ
e) o
f ind
ivid
uals
in c
onta
ct
with
stru
ctur
ed d
rug
treat
men
t ser
vice
s42
575
078
535
see
full
targ
et
defin
ition
ii. %
of i
ndiv
idua
ls re
tain
ed in
trea
tmen
t73
8085
5se
e fu
ll ta
rget
de
finiti
on1.
5 R
educ
tion
in n
umbe
r of r
e-re
ferr
als
to
Chi
ldre
n an
d Fa
mily
Ser
vice
occ
urrin
g w
ithin
12
mon
ths
% re
duct
ion
in re
ferr
al ra
te14
.89
8
1.6
Red
uce
the
num
ber o
f chi
ldre
n de
regi
ster
ed fr
om th
e C
hild
Pro
tect
ion
Reg
istra
r who
hav
e be
en o
n th
e re
gist
rar
for t
wo
year
s or
mor
e
% o
f chi
ldre
n de
regi
ster
ed fr
om th
e C
hild
P
rote
ctio
n R
egis
ter w
ho h
ave
been
on
the
regi
ster
for t
wo
year
s or
mor
e
4.7
65
1.7
Incr
ease
the
num
ber o
f sub
stan
ce
mis
usin
g pa
rent
s ac
cess
ing
treat
men
t#
of s
ubst
ance
mis
usin
g pa
rent
s ac
cess
ing
treat
men
tun
der C
YP
P/D
AA
T re
view
1.8
Saf
er ro
ads,
mea
sure
d in
term
s of
bo
th c
asua
lty re
duct
ion
and
perc
eptio
n of
sa
fety
% o
f kill
ed a
nd s
erio
usly
inju
red
(KS
I) ro
ad u
sers
com
pare
d to
all
KS
I63
5754
defin
ition
to b
e re
vise
d (#
) Ann
ual i
n Ja
ni.
% o
f LA
C w
ith 3
or m
ore
plac
emen
ts
durin
g th
e ye
ar15
108
SS
(LA
C)2
, PA
F A
1 at
31
Dec
200
6ii.
% o
f LA
C 4
+ ye
ars
who
wer
e in
fost
er
plac
emen
t 2+
year
s44
5660
SS
(LA
C)3
PA
F D
35
at 3
1 D
ec 2
006
ii. E
stab
lish
base
line
data
, mon
itorin
g an
d re
porti
ng s
yste
ms
Rev
iew
the
alco
hol s
trate
gy a
nd re
-pr
iorit
ise
actio
n pl
anpr
oces
s ba
sed
- w
orke
r rec
ruite
d - o
n tra
ck
Targ
et u
nder
CY
PP
/DA
AT
revi
ew
i. D
evel
opm
enta
l wor
k ag
reed
in th
e al
coho
l st
rate
gy a
ctio
n pl
an
1.9
Sta
bilit
y of
pla
cem
ent
1.3
Effe
ctiv
e an
d en
durin
g al
coho
l tre
atm
ent p
rogr
amm
es
To b
e es
tabl
ishe
d
D8
LAA
OU
TCO
ME
S A
ND
TA
RG
ETS
AN
NE
X 1
Out
com
eP
erfo
rman
ce M
easu
re /
Indi
cato
rR
efre
sh
Bas
elin
eP
erfo
rman
ce
Enh
ance
men
tC
omm
ents
2004
/05
2005
/06
2006
/07
2007
/08
With
out
Rew
ard
With
R
ewar
d
Out
turn
2008
/09
Per
form
ance
Tar
gets
2.1*
Cle
aner
nei
ghbo
urho
ods
– E
ncam
s m
easu
re%
of r
elev
ant l
and
and
high
way
s as
sess
ed a
s ha
ving
com
bine
d de
posi
ts o
f lit
ter a
nd d
etrit
us th
at fa
ll be
low
an
acce
ptab
le le
vel
2820
164
see
full
targ
et
defin
ition
2.2
Per
sona
lised
trav
el p
lann
ing
deliv
erin
g m
odal
shi
ft an
d C
O2
emis
sion
sa
ving
s
to b
e ag
reed
2.3
Red
uce
fuel
pov
erty
and
incr
ease
en
ergy
effi
cien
cy in
hom
es%
ene
rgy
incr
ease
in e
nerg
y ef
ficie
ncy
in
hom
es1.
51.
51.
5
3.1
Red
uced
bus
ines
s w
aste
and
in
crea
sed
recy
clin
g an
d en
ergy
effi
cien
cy
on in
dust
rial e
stat
es
% in
crea
se o
f bus
ines
ses
on in
dust
rial
esta
tes
that
hav
e IS
O14
001
and
BS
8555
ce
rtifie
d en
viro
nmen
tal m
anag
emen
t sy
stem
s in
pla
ce
100
+10%
+20%
Gre
enin
g B
usin
ess
Offi
cers
recr
uite
d
i. S
tatu
s of
Cou
ncil
cont
ribut
ion
to th
e K
ings
ton
Bio
dive
rsity
Act
ion
Pla
nM
onito
ring
fram
ewor
k in
pla
ceii.
% o
f und
esig
nate
d la
nd is
sur
veye
d to
id
entif
y pr
esen
ce o
f and
opp
ortu
nitie
s fo
r m
aint
enan
ce a
nd o
r enh
ance
men
t of
biod
iver
sity
15se
e co
mm
ent
6090
GLA
sur
vey
of s
ites
com
plet
ed.
RB
K
asse
ssm
ent
unde
rway
.
iii.
% a
rea
(ha)
of L
ocal
Nat
ure
Res
erve
s pe
r 1,0
00 p
opul
atio
n0.
674
haA
reas
id
entif
ied
1215
Res
ourc
es b
eing
id
entif
ied
i. %
of a
ll tri
ps m
ade
by c
ycle
4se
e co
mm
ent
4.75
5R
epor
t dep
enda
nt o
n Tf
L de
man
d su
rvey
ii. %
of w
ork
trips
by
car
n/a
"44
.343
.53.
4* Im
prov
e co
nditi
on o
f foo
tway
s%
of t
he c
ateg
ory
1, 1
a an
d 2
foot
way
ne
twor
k w
here
stru
ctur
al m
aint
enan
ce
shou
ld b
e co
nsid
ered
3826
179
see
full
targ
et
defin
ition
i. R
educ
tion
in th
e %
of m
unic
ipal
w
aste
land
fille
d76
.03
72.7
472
.45
ii. In
crea
se in
the
% o
f mun
icip
al w
aste
re
cycl
ed17
.41
17.9
978
.04
3.3
An
impr
oved
env
ironm
ent f
or w
alki
ng
and
cycl
ing
and
an in
crea
se in
use
of
thes
e fo
rms
of tr
ansp
ort
3.5
Red
uce
was
te to
land
fill a
nd
incr
ease
recy
clin
g
Bud
get i
dent
ified
for
supp
ortin
g of
ficer
and
op
erat
ing
cost
s
Hab
itat &
spe
cies
ac
tion
plan
s
2. C
LEA
NE
R C
OM
MU
NIT
IES
proj
ect i
ntiia
ted
- bas
elin
e be
ing
esta
blis
hed
in c
onsu
ltatio
n w
ith T
fL
3. G
RE
EN
ER
CO
MM
UN
ITIE
S
3.2
Enh
ance
the
loca
l env
ironm
ent
thro
ugh
the
cons
erva
tion
of b
iodi
vers
ity
and
the
natu
ral e
nviro
nmen
t
D9
LAA
OU
TCO
ME
S A
ND
TA
RG
ETS
AN
NE
X 1
Out
com
eP
erfo
rman
ce M
easu
re /
Indi
cato
rR
efre
sh
Bas
elin
eP
erfo
rman
ce
Enh
ance
men
tC
omm
ents
2004
/05
2005
/06
2006
/07
2007
/08
With
out
Rew
ard
With
R
ewar
d
Out
turn
2008
/09
Per
form
ance
Tar
gets
i. %
of e
duca
tion
trip
s by
car
n/a
3332
ii. %
sch
ools
with
sch
ool t
rave
l pla
ns17
3960
100%
= 5
2 - T
arge
t 10
0% b
y 20
10
i. #
of y
oung
peo
ple
votin
g in
the
natio
nal
You
th P
arlia
men
t ele
ctio
n42
76 (3
6%)
38%
40%
ii. #
of Y
outh
For
ums
held
2011
12iii
. # o
f for
mal
Mem
ber l
evel
mee
tings
at
whi
ch y
oung
peo
ple
play
an
activ
e ro
le13
910
i. #
of p
eopl
e at
tend
ing
Nei
ghbo
urho
od
Com
mitt
ee m
eetin
gs e
ach
year
1,10
82,
500
2,60
0
ii. #
of p
eopl
e (i.
e. m
embe
rs o
f the
pub
lic)
cont
ribut
ing
to d
ebat
es a
t Nei
ghbo
urho
od
Com
mitt
ee m
eetin
gs e
ach
year
341
320
340
iii. #
of p
eopl
e sp
eaki
ng o
n pl
anni
ng
appl
icat
ions
at N
eigh
bour
hood
Com
mitt
ee
mee
tings
9217
018
0
iv. %
of p
eopl
e w
ho fe
el th
at th
eir l
ocal
ar
ea is
a p
lace
whe
re p
eopl
e fr
om
diffe
rent
bac
kgro
unds
get
on
wel
l to
geth
er
awai
ting
LGU
SS
tba
tba
i. #
of p
eopl
e at
tend
ing
Saf
er
Nei
ghbo
urho
ods
mee
tings
n/a
4000
4000
+Fi
rst m
eetin
gs 2
004
ii. I
ncre
ased
eng
agem
ent o
f BM
E
com
mun
ities
n/a
Res
iden
ts S
urve
y
iii %
of p
eopl
e w
ho fe
el th
ey c
an in
fluen
ce
deci
sion
s th
at a
ffect
thei
r loc
al a
rea
38n/
a48
53R
esid
ents
Sur
vey
i. #
of a
genc
ies
invo
lved
in th
e ad
vice
and
in
form
atio
n ne
twor
k5
910
ii. #
of i
nter
vent
ions
with
in th
e ne
twor
k ar
rang
emen
ts e
ach
year
4032
848
0
to b
e ag
reed
4.4
Pro
mot
ion
of s
ocia
l inc
lusi
on –
acc
ess
to ju
stic
e an
d re
ferr
al p
athw
ays
4.2
Empo
wer
loca
l peo
ple
to h
ave
a gr
eate
r voi
ce a
nd in
fluen
ce o
ver l
ocal
de
cisi
on m
akin
g an
d a
grea
ter r
ole
in
publ
ic s
ervi
ce d
eliv
ery
3.6
Mod
al s
hare
in s
choo
l tra
vel
4.1
Incr
ease
civ
ic p
artic
ipat
ion
by y
oung
pe
ople
4. C
OM
MU
NIT
Y E
NG
AG
EM
EN
T
4.3
Bet
ter p
erce
ptio
ns o
f com
mun
ity
enga
gem
ent a
nd c
ohes
ion
D10
LAA
OU
TCO
ME
S A
ND
TA
RG
ETS
AN
NE
X 1
Out
com
eP
erfo
rman
ce M
easu
re /
Indi
cato
rR
efre
sh
Bas
elin
eP
erfo
rman
ce
Enh
ance
men
tC
omm
ents
2004
/05
2005
/06
2006
/07
2007
/08
With
out
Rew
ard
With
R
ewar
d
Out
turn
2008
/09
Per
form
ance
Tar
gets
i. #
of re
side
nts
250
300
600
300
ii. #
of r
esid
ents
from
soc
ially
exc
lude
d gr
oups
133
360
635
275
4.6
Em
pow
er lo
cal p
eopl
e to
hav
e gr
eate
r ch
oice
and
influ
ence
ove
r loc
al d
ecis
ion
mak
ing
and
a gr
eate
r rol
e in
pub
lic
serv
ice
deliv
ery
% o
f peo
ple
who
feel
that
thei
r loc
al a
rea
is a
pla
ce w
here
peo
ple
from
diff
eren
t ba
ckgr
ound
s ge
t on
wel
l tog
ethe
r
48S
urve
y
i. #
of y
oung
peo
ple
rece
ivin
g sp
ecia
list
subs
tanc
e m
isus
e se
rvic
es20
5060
ii. #
of p
rofe
ssio
nals
wor
king
with
chi
ldre
n an
d yo
ung
peop
le w
ho re
ceiv
e dr
ug a
nd
alco
hol t
rain
ing
n/a
7090
Aca
dem
ic y
ear
i. #
of n
eigh
bour
hood
-bas
ed s
exua
l hea
lth
serv
ices
n/a
23+
ii %
of 1
5-24
yea
r old
s ac
cept
ing
Chl
amyd
ia s
cree
ning
n/a
To b
e de
fined
by
DH
To b
e de
fined
by
DoH
iii %
of m
aint
aine
d sc
hool
s w
ith a
re
view
ed S
RE
pol
icy
in li
ne w
ith la
test
gu
idan
ce
data
bei
ng
colle
cted
8010
0B
asel
ine
bein
g es
tabl
ishe
d
5.3
Red
uce
the
rate
of u
nder
18
conc
eptio
ns#
of c
once
ptio
ns o
f tho
se u
nder
18
per
thou
sand
25.6
22.4
21.1
Alig
ned
with
CY
PP
i. %
sch
ools
acc
redi
ted
to th
e H
ealth
y S
choo
ls s
chem
e50
7595
20se
e fu
ll ta
rget
de
finiti
onii.
% o
f sch
ools
wor
king
tow
ards
the
Hea
lthy
Sch
ools
sch
eme
7090
100
10se
e fu
ll ta
rget
de
finiti
oni.
Hal
t yea
r on
year
rise
in o
besi
ty u
nder
11
by
2010
Crit
eria
to b
e se
t by
DoH
ii. D
evel
op m
ulti-
face
ted
prog
ram
me
aim
ed a
t pre
vent
ing
over
wei
ght a
nd
obes
ity a
mon
g ch
ildre
n an
d fa
mili
es
0
iii. #
of e
xten
ded
scho
ol c
lust
ers
01
2un
der C
YP
P re
view
mea
sues
to b
e ag
reed
4.5*
Gen
erat
e co
mm
unity
eng
agem
ent
thro
ugh
volu
ntee
ring
5. H
EA
LTH
Y A
CTI
VE
LIV
ES
FO
R Y
OU
NG
PE
OP
LE
5.4*
Hea
lthie
r sch
ools
5.5
Hea
lthy
eatin
g an
d ac
tive
lifes
tyle
s
5.1
Red
uce
drug
and
alc
ohol
rela
ted
harm
to
chi
ldre
n an
d yo
ung
peop
le
5.2
Impr
oved
acc
ess
to s
exua
l hea
lth
serv
ices
for y
oung
peo
ple
Crit
eria
to b
e se
t by
DoH
Pro
gram
me
deve
lope
d
D11
LAA
OU
TCO
ME
S A
ND
TA
RG
ETS
AN
NE
X 1
Out
com
eP
erfo
rman
ce M
easu
re /
Indi
cato
rR
efre
sh
Bas
elin
eP
erfo
rman
ce
Enh
ance
men
tC
omm
ents
2004
/05
2005
/06
2006
/07
2007
/08
With
out
Rew
ard
With
R
ewar
d
Out
turn
2008
/09
Per
form
ance
Tar
gets
5.6
Impr
ove
supp
ort o
f vul
nera
ble
child
ren
- psy
chol
ogic
al a
nd m
enta
l hea
lth#
of fu
ll tim
e so
cial
wor
kers
or r
elat
ed
prof
essi
onal
s ba
sed
with
in th
e C
AM
HS
3.3
56
i. %
of s
choo
l stu
dent
s in
spe
cial
sch
ools
ag
ed 5
to 1
6 pa
rtici
patin
g in
at l
east
two
hour
s of
hig
h qu
ality
PE
and
sch
ool s
port
per w
eek
1365
8520
ii. #
of s
choo
l stu
dent
s w
ith s
peci
al
educ
atio
nal n
eeds
or d
isab
ilitie
s at
tain
ing
leve
l 4 in
yea
r 6 in
PE
020
5838
Red
uce
heal
th in
equa
litie
s w
ithin
the
loca
l are
a, b
y na
rrow
ing
the
gap
in a
ll-ag
e, a
ll-ca
use
mor
talit
y
i. In
itiat
ion
of b
reas
t-fee
ding
Q2
89.
0%90
.32%
90.3
2%
ii. A
cces
s to
GU
M s
ervi
ces
with
in 4
8 hr
s of
con
tact
ing
the
serv
ice
Aug
ust
71.9
%85
%10
0%
iii. M
MR
Imm
unis
atio
n by
age
of 2
90.6
1%95
%95
%
6.1*
Act
ive
agin
g%
of a
dults
age
d 45
+ pa
rtici
patin
g in
at
leas
t 30
min
utes
mod
erat
e in
tens
ity s
port
and
activ
e re
crea
tion
to b
e co
nfirm
ed0
4545
i. O
besi
ty s
tatu
s am
ong
GP
regi
ster
ed
popu
latio
n of
50+
n/a
Yea
r 2
mon
itor
5%
redu
ctio
n20
06/0
7 as
a
base
line
for y
ears
two
and
thre
e
ii. #
of G
P p
ract
ices
to re
fer p
atie
nts
to
new
pro
gram
mes
0
12
iii. #
of p
oten
tial ‘
heal
th tr
aine
rs’ i
dent
ified
fro
m tr
aine
d ad
viso
rs0
48
6.2
Impr
ove
heal
th/re
duce
obe
sity
in o
ver
50s
5.7*
Incr
ease
Exe
rcis
e Le
vels
and
at
tain
men
t of L
evel
4 in
PE
for C
hild
ren
with
Spe
cial
Nee
ds a
nd d
isab
ilitie
s.
6.4.
Impr
oved
Hea
lth a
nd re
duce
d H
ealth
Ineq
ualit
ies
6. H
EA
LTH
Y A
CTI
VE
LIV
ES
FO
R A
DU
LTS
D12
LAA
OU
TCO
ME
S A
ND
TA
RG
ETS
AN
NE
X 1
Out
com
eP
erfo
rman
ce M
easu
re /
Indi
cato
rR
efre
sh
Bas
elin
eP
erfo
rman
ce
Enh
ance
men
tC
omm
ents
2004
/05
2005
/06
2006
/07
2007
/08
With
out
Rew
ard
With
R
ewar
d
Out
turn
2008
/09
Per
form
ance
Tar
gets
i. #
of a
dults
with
a le
arni
ng d
isab
ility
(a
ged
18-6
4 ye
ars)
hel
ped
to li
ve a
t hom
e18
217
918
1Li
nks
to P
AF
C30
ii. #
of p
eopl
e ag
ed 1
8 or
ove
r who
hav
e a
lear
ning
or p
hysi
cal d
isab
ility
who
hav
e re
ceiv
ed d
irect
pay
men
ts d
urin
g th
e ye
ar
121
130
140
Link
to P
AF
C51
iii. %
of t
he le
arni
ng d
isab
ility
ser
vice
us
ers
aged
18-
64 th
at a
re h
elpe
d to
live
at
hom
e
56.2
53.5
54Li
nk to
PA
F C
11
Red
uce
heal
th in
equa
litie
s w
ithin
the
loca
l are
a, b
y na
rrow
ing
the
gap
in a
ll-ag
e, a
ll-ca
use
mor
talit
y
i. R
educ
ing
canc
er m
orta
lity
rate
2002
/04
113.
011
510
0
ii. R
educ
ing
CVD
mor
talit
y ra
te20
02/0
4 82
.177
73
iii. C
ervi
cal s
cree
ning
rate
s77
.30%
80%
80%
iv. S
mok
ing
durin
g pr
egna
ncy
Q2
7%
16.0
4%5.
98%
7.1
New
affo
rdab
le h
ousi
ng%
of n
ew a
fford
able
hom
es c
ompl
eted
in
the
boro
ugh
28%
see
com
men
t73
%27
%
7.2
Spar
eC
ombi
ned
with
7.3
7.3
Red
uce
the
num
ber o
f chi
ldre
n th
at
live
in h
omes
whi
ch d
o no
t mee
t dec
ency
st
anda
rds
Ann
ual %
cha
nge
in p
ropo
rtio
n of
non
de
cent
LA
hom
es20
115
BV
PI 1
84a
7.4
Spar
eC
ombi
ned
with
7.5
7.5
Red
uce
num
ber o
f chi
ldre
n liv
ing
in
tem
pora
ry a
ccom
mod
atio
nA
vera
ge le
ngth
of t
ime
in B
&B
for
hous
ehol
ds w
ith c
hild
ren
or p
regn
ant
wom
en
4.5
4.5
4B
VP
I 183
a
7. S
US
TAIN
AB
LE C
OM
MU
NIT
IES
6.3
Impr
ove
the
qual
ity o
f life
of d
isab
led
peop
le b
y en
ablin
g m
ore
peop
le w
ith
lear
ning
and
phy
sica
l dis
abili
ties
to li
ve in
th
eir o
wn
hom
es
6.4.
Impr
oved
Hea
lth a
nd re
duce
d H
ealth
Ineq
ualit
ies
D13
LAA
OU
TCO
ME
S A
ND
TA
RG
ETS
AN
NE
X 1
Out
com
eP
erfo
rman
ce M
easu
re /
Indi
cato
rR
efre
sh
Bas
elin
eP
erfo
rman
ce
Enh
ance
men
tC
omm
ents
2004
/05
2005
/06
2006
/07
2007
/08
With
out
Rew
ard
With
R
ewar
d
Out
turn
2008
/09
Per
form
ance
Tar
gets
i. %
of C
ounc
il sp
end
goin
g to
loca
l SM
Es
and
third
sec
tor e
nter
pris
es0
+x%
+x
%pr
oces
s ba
sed
- un
der n
egot
iatio
nii.
% o
f sup
plie
rs th
at a
re lo
cal S
ME
s or
th
ird s
ecto
r ent
erpr
ises
0 +
x%
+x%
proc
ess
base
d -
unde
r neg
otia
tion
8.2
Impr
oved
com
mun
ity tr
ansp
ort o
ptio
ns
lead
ing
to g
reat
er s
ocia
l inc
lusi
on#
of E
nter
pris
e S
chem
es
0S
chem
e 1
full
oper
atio
n
Sch
eme
2 fu
ll op
erat
ion
i.
# of
peo
ple
in re
ceip
t of i
ncap
acity
be
nefit
s fo
r a m
inim
um o
f at l
east
26
wee
ks h
elpe
d in
to s
usta
ined
em
ploy
men
t of
at l
east
16
hour
s a
wee
k fo
r 13
cons
ecut
ive
wee
ks o
r mor
e
1030
9060
see
full
targ
et
defin
ition
ii. #
of p
eopl
e in
rece
ipt o
f inc
apac
ity
bene
fits
for a
min
imum
of a
t lea
st 2
6 w
eeks
hel
ped
into
wor
k of
less
than
16
hour
s fo
r 13
cons
ecut
ive
wee
ks o
r mor
e
2266
116
50se
e fu
ll ta
rget
de
finiti
on
i. #
of le
arne
rs p
rogr
essi
ng fr
om N
VQ
le
vel 1
to le
vel 2
ach
ieve
d th
roug
h K
ings
ton
Col
lege
reta
il C
oVE
out
reac
h in
itiat
ive
and
any
othe
r rel
ated
initi
ativ
es
010
0 le
arne
rs11
0 le
arne
rs
ii. #
of l
earn
ers
prog
ress
ing
from
NV
Q
leve
l 2 to
leve
l 3 th
roug
h K
ings
ton
Col
lege
re
tail
CoV
E o
utre
ach
initi
ativ
e an
d an
y ot
her r
elat
ed in
itiat
ives
075
lear
ners
82 le
arne
rs
iii. #
of b
usin
esse
s ac
tivel
y en
gage
d in
the
proj
ect -
Kin
gsto
n C
olle
ge re
tail
CoV
E
outre
ach
initi
ativ
e an
d an
y ot
her r
elat
ed
initi
ativ
es
050
60
8.1
Sup
porti
ng lo
cal S
ME
s an
d 3r
d S
ecto
r or
gani
satio
ns to
pro
cure
from
pub
lic
sect
or o
rgan
isat
ions
8.3*
Sup
porti
ng p
eopl
e w
ith h
ealth
rela
ted
prob
lem
s in
to w
ork
8.4
Incr
ease
loca
l ski
ll le
vels
with
re
fere
nce
to lo
cal b
usin
ess
need
8. E
CO
NO
MIC
WE
LL B
EIN
G
D14
LAA
OU
TCO
ME
S A
ND
TA
RG
ETS
AN
NE
X 1
Out
com
eP
erfo
rman
ce M
easu
re /
Indi
cato
rR
efre
sh
Bas
elin
eP
erfo
rman
ce
Enh
ance
men
tC
omm
ents
2004
/05
2005
/06
2006
/07
2007
/08
With
out
Rew
ard
With
R
ewar
d
Out
turn
2008
/09
Per
form
ance
Tar
gets
8.5
Con
tinue
to s
uppo
rt m
ore
disa
bled
ch
ildre
n an
d th
ose
with
lear
ning
diff
icul
ties
to e
ngag
e in
wor
k ex
perie
nce
% o
f dire
ct p
aym
ents
to d
isab
led
child
ren
and
thei
r fam
ilies
as
a pr
opor
tion
of th
e es
timat
es to
tal o
f dis
able
d ch
ildre
n
2.35
2.65
2.8
i. M
onito
r ret
ail a
nd b
usin
ess
offe
r (a
mou
nt o
f new
/refu
rbis
hed
floor
spa
ce)
n/a
proc
ess
base
d -
unde
r neg
otia
tion
ii. M
onito
r the
rang
e of
leis
ure/
en
terta
inm
ent a
nd c
ultu
ral f
acili
ties
n/a
proc
ess
base
d -
unde
r neg
otia
tion
9.2*
Mai
ntai
n a
safe
env
ironm
ent i
n K
ings
ton
tow
n ce
ntre
by
day
and
nigh
t#
(cum
ulat
ive)
of w
ound
ing
and
com
mon
as
saul
t offe
nces
in G
rove
War
d (in
clud
ing
dom
estic
vio
lenc
e)
927
2575
2528
47se
e fu
ll ta
rget
de
finiti
on
9.3
A m
ore
sust
aina
ble
envi
ronm
ent i
n K
ings
ton
tow
n ce
ntre
Mon
itor t
he e
nviro
nmen
t and
sus
tain
abili
tyn/
a
9.4
Impr
ove
trans
port
and
acce
ss in
and
to
Kin
gsto
n to
wn
cent
reM
onito
r im
prov
emen
ts in
tran
spor
t and
ac
cess
n/a
i. %
of p
upils
ach
ievi
ng K
ey S
tage
3 le
vel
5 m
aths
who
then
ach
ieve
GC
SE
A*
- C in
m
aths
2530
355
see
full
targ
et
defin
ition
ii. %
of p
upils
ach
ievi
ng 5
A*
- C (i
nclu
ding
E
nglis
h an
d m
aths
)59
.161
632
see
full
targ
et
defin
ition
10.2
Red
uce
# of
16-
18 y
ear o
lds
not i
n ed
ucat
ion,
em
ploy
men
t or t
rain
ing
(NEE
T)
% o
f 16-
18 y
ear o
lds
not i
n ed
ucat
ion,
em
ploy
men
t or t
rain
ing
(NEE
T)3.
53.
53.
5A
ligne
d w
ith C
YP
P -
link
to c
onne
xion
s fu
ndin
g10
.3 I
ncre
ase
% o
f 19
year
old
car
e le
aver
s in
edu
catio
n, e
mpl
oym
ent o
r tra
inin
g
% in
edu
catio
n, e
mpl
oym
ent a
nd tr
aini
ng74
8585
see
10.6
i. #
of v
ulne
rabl
e yo
ung
peop
le
invo
lved
in ta
rget
ted
PAYP
and
Su
mm
er C
onne
xion
s Pr
ogra
mm
e
6670
70
9. K
ING
STO
N T
OW
N C
EN
TRE
10. A
TTA
INM
EN
T
10.4
Inte
rven
tion
to e
nsur
e vu
lner
able
16-
year
old
s ha
ve a
n ap
prop
riate
des
tinat
ion
Pro
gres
s on
Ros
e Th
eatre
and
hot
els
10.1
* In
crea
se th
e %
of P
upils
with
5+
GC
SE
A*-
C in
clud
ing
Eng
lish
and
mat
hs
by th
e en
d of
KS
4
9.1
Mai
ntai
ning
a ro
bust
and
div
erse
ec
onom
y in
Kin
gsto
n to
wn
cent
re
espe
cial
ly in
the
perio
d pr
ior t
o an
d du
ring
maj
or re
deve
lopm
ent
Iden
tify
spec
ific
impr
ovem
ents
Id
entif
y sp
ecifi
c im
prov
emen
ts
Wor
k w
ith H
amm
erso
n de
velo
per a
nd
asso
ciat
ed m
ilest
ones
D15
LAA
OU
TCO
ME
S A
ND
TA
RG
ETS
AN
NE
X 1
Out
com
eP
erfo
rman
ce M
easu
re /
Indi
cato
rR
efre
sh
Bas
elin
eP
erfo
rman
ce
Enh
ance
men
tC
omm
ents
2004
/05
2005
/06
2006
/07
2007
/08
With
out
Rew
ard
With
R
ewar
d
Out
turn
2008
/09
Per
form
ance
Tar
gets
ii. %
Yea
r 11
from
Kin
gsto
n sc
hool
s re
ceiv
ing
an o
ffer o
f a p
lace
in E
ET10
010
010
0In
clud
ed fr
om C
YP
P
D16
LAA
OU
TCO
ME
S A
ND
TA
RG
ETS
AN
NE
X 1
Out
com
eP
erfo
rman
ce M
easu
re /
Indi
cato
rR
efre
sh
Bas
elin
eP
erfo
rman
ce
Enh
ance
men
tC
omm
ents
2004
/05
2005
/06
2006
/07
2007
/08
With
out
Rew
ard
With
R
ewar
d
Out
turn
2008
/09
Per
form
ance
Tar
gets
i. %
ach
ievi
ng le
vel 5
+ E
nglis
h in
Key
S
tage
2 S
ATs
3440
444
see
full
targ
et
defin
ition
ii. %
ach
ievi
ng le
vel 5
+ m
aths
in K
ey
Sta
ge 2
SA
Ts40
4346
3se
e fu
ll ta
rget
de
finiti
on10
.6 In
crea
se th
e nu
mbe
r of l
ooke
d af
ter
child
ren
in fu
rther
edu
catio
n, e
mpl
oym
ent
and
train
ing
% o
f loo
ked
afte
r chi
ldre
n in
furth
er
educ
atio
n, e
mpl
oym
ent a
nd tr
aini
ng84
see
com
men
t90
90un
der C
YP
P re
view
- se
e 10
.3
10.7
Im
prov
e sc
hool
atte
ndan
ce o
f lo
oked
afte
r chi
ldre
n%
of L
AC
abs
ent f
rom
sch
ool f
or 2
5 da
ys
or m
ore
08
7
i. %
of c
are
leav
ers
with
A-G
GC
SE
8265
65R
evie
w C
YP
P d
ata
ii. #
of c
are
leav
ers
16+
with
5+
GC
SE
A* t
o C
or a
GN
VQ3
22
Alig
ned
with
CY
PP
11.2
Im
prov
e ac
hiev
emen
ts fo
r chi
ldre
n w
ith d
isab
ilitie
s/sp
ecia
l edu
catio
nal n
eeds
% m
inim
um o
f goa
ls s
et w
ithin
thei
r ow
n IE
P e
very
dis
able
d ch
ild a
chie
ves
n/a
8595
unde
r CY
PP
revi
ew
11.3
Inc
reas
e up
-take
of d
irect
pay
men
ts
by fa
mili
es w
ith d
isab
led
child
ren
# of
chi
ldre
n ac
cess
ing
dire
ct p
aym
ents
or
vouc
hers
n/a
1316
11.4
Pro
vide
pos
itive
act
iviti
es d
urin
g ou
t of
sch
ool t
ime
for v
ulne
rabl
e yo
ung
peop
le
# of
fte
plac
es a
vaila
ble
for y
oung
peo
ple
to p
artic
ipat
e in
pos
itive
act
iviti
es d
urin
g sc
hool
hol
iday
s
911
12
11. O
PP
OR
TUN
ITY
10.5
* Im
prov
e pr
ogre
ss ra
tes
for m
ore
able
pup
ils a
t Key
Sta
ge 2
11.1
Mai
ntai
n th
e ed
ucat
iona
l out
com
es
of c
are
leav
ers
D17
LAA
OU
TCO
ME
S A
ND
TA
RG
ETS
AN
NE
X 1
Out
com
eP
erfo
rman
ce M
easu
re /
Indi
cato
rR
efre
sh
Bas
elin
eP
erfo
rman
ce
Enh
ance
men
tC
omm
ents
2004
/05
2005
/06
2006
/07
2007
/08
With
out
Rew
ard
With
R
ewar
d
Out
turn
2008
/09
Per
form
ance
Tar
gets
12.1
Red
uctio
n in
num
ber o
f loo
ked
afte
r ch
ildre
n re
ceiv
ing
form
al w
arni
ngs/
co
nvic
tions
% o
f loo
ked
afte
r chi
ldre
n re
ceiv
ing
form
al
war
ning
s/ c
onvi
ctio
ns1.
32.
42
12.2
Red
uctio
n in
num
ber o
f firs
t tim
e of
fend
ers
ente
ring
the
yout
h ju
stic
e sy
stem
# of
firs
t tim
e en
trant
s to
the
You
th J
ustic
e sy
stem
161
118
115
12.3
Effe
ctiv
enes
s of
the
outc
ome
of
parti
cipa
tion
by c
hild
ren
and
youn
g pe
ople
di
rect
ly in
fluen
cing
ser
vice
dev
elop
men
t
# of
key
issu
es id
entif
ied
annu
ally
by
child
ren
and
youn
g pe
ople
whi
ch
influ
ence
d se
rvic
e de
liver
y
911
12
i. #
of A
SB
Os
mad
e in
resp
ect o
f you
ng
peop
le 1
7 ye
ars
and
unde
r in
any
one
year
63
2
ii. #
of A
BC
s m
ade
in re
spec
t of y
oung
pe
ople
17
year
s an
d un
der
4639
41
iii. %
chi
ldre
n ag
ed 8
-13
per y
ear f
or
asse
ssm
ent a
nd p
lann
ed in
terv
entio
ns
targ
eted
by
the
You
th In
clus
ion
and
Sup
port
Pan
el
37co
mm
ence
d N
ov
2005
set a
fter A
pr 0
7
12. M
AK
E A
PO
SIT
IVE
CO
NTR
IBU
TIO
N
12.4
Red
uce
anti-
soci
al b
ehav
iour
by
youn
g pe
ople
APPENDIX E Executive, 20 March 2007
CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY STRATEGY Report by the Director of Environmental Services Executive Member for Sustainability and Biodiversity
Purpose
This report sets out the international, national, regional and local background and drivers for the development of strategies to tackle Climate Change and energy consumption. It describes the work undertaken, some existing good practice and makes proposals for the development of a Climate Change and energy strategy. It proposes that the Council signs the Nottingham Declaration on Climate Change; and responds to an e-petition on the development of an energy strategy. Action proposed by the Executive Member for Sustainability and Biodiversity: The Executive is requested to: 1. agree the process and timescale for the development of the strategy; 2. agree the scope of the energy strategy as set out in this report; 3. approve the signing of the Nottingham Declaration on Climate Change; 4. approve the course of action relating to the ePetition. 5. authorise the Head of Environment and Sustainability to identify up to £40,000 from
existing budgets to resource the development of the strategy. Reason for action proposed To ensure that Climate Change is given due importance and that the Council has an effective energy strategy that both addresses climate change and the proper management of Council resources.
BACKGROUND International 1. The challenges presented by Climate Change are real and significant. The 2007
IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) report leaves no doubt that human activity contributes to global warming, and that climate change is happening now and in many places in the world. The burning of fossil fuels (coal, gas, oil etc) for energy leads to emissions of CO2, in volume the most significant global warming gas.
2. The Stern Review, published in November 2006, addresses the economics of
climate change and concludes that ignoring climate change will eventually damage economic growth. Mitigation – taking strong action to reduce emissions – must be
E2
viewed as an investment; and that the benefits of strong early action outweigh the costs. Stern also notes that, given that climate change is happening, measures to help people adapt to it are essential. The less mitigation we do now, the greater will be the difficulty of continuing to adapt in the future. The report also concludes that there is still time to avoid the worst impacts of climate change if strong collective action starts now.
3. European, National and Regional governance each provide imperatives for action
and recognise that local authorities are at the forefront of efforts to combat climate change. With their position as major energy consumers and community leaders, local authorities are ideally placed to promote energy efficient behaviour in communities and drive the behavioural change necessary to meet crucial carbon emissions reduction targets.
European 4. The European Union and the individual Member States are parties to the UN
convention on climate change and the Kyoto Protocol. The European Climate Change strategy addresses carbon capture and storage, passenger road transport, aviation, and carbon trading. Of particular interest to Local Authorities is the European Directive on the energy performance of buildings. It includes minimum energy requirements for new and for large existing buildings being renovated, and the energy certification of buildings. For public buildings which require an energy certificate it must be on public display. Certificates are required for new buildings and when buildings are sold or rented out.
5. Other European legislative drivers include the EU emissions trading scheme. National 6. The UK Climate Change Strategy 2006 was published in March of that year. It sets
a domestic target to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 20% below 1990 levels by 2010 and notes that action by local authorities is likely to be critical to the achievement of the government’s climate change objectives. Local authorities are uniquely placed to provide vision and leadership to local communities, raise awareness and help change behaviours. In addition, through their powers and responsibilities (housing, planning, local transport, powers to promote well-being and through activities such as their own local procurement and operations) they can have significant influence over emissions in their local areas. In future changes to the local government performance framework it is very likely there will be more focus on action to tackle climate change.
7. The Audit Commission in England and Wales has recommended that the level of
energy investment should equate to 10% of the energy bill. It is almost certain that there will be significant “invest to save” opportunities to be gained.
8. Under the new planning system there is greater emphasis on delivering the national
sustainable development and climate change strategies. The planning documents that Local Planning Authority’s produce are subject to Sustainability Appraisal. Three Government current or developing planning policy statements are particularly relevant. These are on renewable energy, development and flood risk and on climate change.
E3
Regional 9. The Mayor of London published his Energy Strategy “Green Light to Clean Power”
in February 2004. This addresses energy efficiency, fuel poverty and reducing emissions. On 27 February 2007 he published his “Action Today to Protect Tomorrow - the Mayor’s Climate Change Action Plan” which focuses on CO2 mitigation and on what is required to deliver the CO2 targets in the proposed draft Further Alteration to the London Plan. The Mayor’s detailed strategy and approach towards climate change, including both mitigation and adaptation, will be outlined in a new Mayor’s Climate Change Mitigation and Energy Strategy and a Mayor’s Climate Change Adaptation Strategy; the latter will be published in the first half of 2007. The London Boroughs will have a key role to play and the Mayor of London will use planning and transport powers and partnerships to implement change in London.
Petition 10. A petition initiated by Dr Birley, to the Council on these matters shows that the
borough’s residents share the concerns and want the Council to take action. It received 58 signatures and read:
‘Many people in our community now recognise that climate change is a major threat to our future well-being and that of our children. Kingston Borough Council have recognised that threat but not yet taken concerted action by developing an energy strategy. By contrast, nearby Woking council have already reduced their carbon emissions by about 70%, and reduced their energy bill by about 40%, while obtaining a net 8% return on investment. Merton Council have established a rule requiring at least 10% renewable energy generation on-site for all major new projects. So it can be done. We petition the council to take urgent action to develop an energy strategy that will substantially reduce carbon emissions, increase energy efficiency, and reduce recurrent expenditure.”
11. The Council understands that the challenges presented by Climate Change are
significant and require it to be far sighted and very proactive. It is clear though that while the Council is very effective in many areas in actions to address energy efficiency and climate change it does not have an overarching Climate Change strategy nor yet a comprehensive energy strategy.
AVAILABLE EVIDENCE IDENTIFYING GAPS AND GOOD PRACTICE WITHIN THE COUNCIL 12. Two reports have been written which review the Council’s position on energy
matters. Together they identify good practice, gaps and the issues to be addressed in an energy strategy.
13. The first is by CEN (Creative Energy Networks) and provided an initial overview of
the borough’s sustainable energy activities, potential gaps in activities and made initial recommendations for future work. This was reported to the Environment and Neighbourhood Overview Panel of 8 September 2005.
14. The Environment and Neighbourhood Overview Panel agreed to:
E4
1. recognise the importance of energy use in addressing climate change, fuel
poverty, and securing financial savings and value; 2. recognise the good practice that has been implemented by the Council but notes
that RBK does not have a comprehensive Energy Strategy;
3. recommend to the Executive that:
(1) it considers the CEN report and its recommendations and in particular in relation to:
(i) Fuel Poverty: Continues to prioritise investment and considers setting
targets to eliminate Fuel Poverty in Kingston by a date to be agreed, identifying the annual investment needed to meet the targets set.
(ii) Fuel Poverty: Continue with investment in the training of health and
social care professionals to identify clients in fuel poverty who would benefit from intervention.
(iii) Fuel Rich: Welcome the targeting of energy hotspots and consider
the investment of £5000 to £8000 annually to gain the maximum improvements in energy efficiency and hence impact on carbon dioxide emissions from such targeting.
(iv) Planning: Develop robust energy policies for energy efficient
buildings and the use of renewable energy in the emerging Local Development Framework and considers the CEN recommendation to implement prescriptive planning targets for renewables.
(v) Planning: Consider placing prescriptive targets for renewables in all
developments, not just major new builds.
(2) a comprehensive Energy Strategy is developed covering the Council’s role as a facilitator, as a Planning Authority, and as a major employer and energy user as identified in the CEN report and that commitment to action is demonstrated by ensuring that it is supported by:
(i) an action plan (ii) regular monitoring reports (iii) the allocation of resources
15. The second is a draft Internal Audit report on Energy and Water Management. The
purpose of the audit was to assess the adequacy and application of appropriate controls and to offer suggestions for improvement where appropriate. The audit examined practices and procedures to determine whether a number of control objectives were being achieved.
16. Both these reports and the petition acknowledge that there is good practice within
the Council. A considerable amount of information is available but its value could be improved with appropriate reporting. The reports identified that the responsibility for energy management, policy, and performance monitoring and
E5
reporting sits throughout the organisation but that at present there is no corporate oversight or staff resource dedicated solely to energy matters. It is this, which in part, explains the gaps, potential opportunities and slow progress in developing a comprehensive strategy.
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CEN REPORT 17. The Council should develop an Energy strategy to address the Council’s roles as
community leader, planning authority, and as major consumer of resources. 18. As community leader to:
a. alleviate fuel poverty b. engage and support the fuel rich in adopting sustainable energy measures c. supporting communities, housing associations and small and medium
enterprises (SMEs) to access sustainable energy support 19. As a planning authority
a. to develop robust sustainable energy policy, ensure planners have the
knowledge and support to implement these policies and that developers are provided with the necessary guidance.
20. As a major consumer of resources to:
a. maximise energy efficiency through its own refurbishment programmes b. benefit form central government funding such as the Carbon Trust Local
Authority Carbon Management Programme and the Invest to Save budget focused on sustainable energy
c. Benefit from programmes such as CEN’s CHP services. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DRAFT INTERNAL AUDIT REPORT 21. The main function of energy management is to control energy consumption and
costs in all Council Public buildings and facilities. 22. Over many years there has been investment and improvement in energy efficient
measures and the Council has invested in energy management resources. In the past budgets were established for energy conservation programmes, particularly for initiatives with short pay-back periods. Some important elements of co-ordination and control are in place. In recent years there does not appear to have been any review of policy or strategy for driving the management of water and energy usage and conservation, with co-ordination and control undertaken at a corporate level.
23. The draft recommendations include:
a. the development of an energy and water strategy b. the establishment of ownership and responsibility for energy and water
conservation c. the undertaking of a baseline and regular bench marking exercise to measure
water, gas and electricity consumption d. production of an annual report which reviews performance in reducing
consumption, including an accurate assessment of any investment
E6
e. consideration of various funding arrangement for the achievement of energy and
water conservation WHAT THE COUNCIL IS CURRENTLY DOING 24. There are a number of things the Council is already doing that address the issues
identified in this report. These include:
a. As part of the Council’s new procurement strategy energy us is at the forefront of both the specification of services and the decision making process. Smith & Byford carry out the Council’s electrical contracting work and look to introduce energy efficient measures, photovoltaic panels; energy efficient controls and low energy lighting over the life of the contract.
b. The Council uses the LASER (Local Authorities South East Region) buying
group to obtain the most competitive rates for energy, including renewable energy sources on an ongoing basis. This has been very important in the face of rising prices.
c. The Council also uses significant amounts of energy in street lighting and
illuminated signs. Since April 2002 more energy efficient lighting has been used for all new and replacement lighting and signs works. In 2005 the Department of Transport approved the use on non-illuminated ‘keep left’ bollards in certain locations. These have been successfully trialled and they are now to be used as standard in approved locations. A capital budget of £50,000 has been allocated in 2006/7 for planned maintenance of street signs and the priority for this has been invest to save measures directed at energy reduction.
d. Wherever possible the design of new buildings and the refurbishment of existing
buildings ensure that energy efficient heat and light sources are recognised as a key element of the project. The rebuilding of Tiffin Girls’ School included an innovative low-energy approach to minimise the delivered energy to the buildings by maximising passive sources. The work at Chessington Community College will be a flagship model of sustainable development and its design should achieve at least a very good rating by the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Method.
e. Tolworth Infant School commissioned a renewable energy feasibility study to
provide advice on the integration of renewable energy technologies at the school.
f. The Council is working with the wider community and business to promote
environmental management, including energy efficiency, in voluntary organisations and business. The PEK (Positive Environment Kingston) initiative has provided support to a number of voluntary and non-profit organisations. And the Greening Business 5 borough LDA funded partnership project has provided the borough SMEs with a dedicated officer to provide resource management advice and small grants.
g. The Council’s Environmental Awareness Strategy has a focus on energy and
climate change and addresses residents and the business community.
E7
h. The Council’s Home Energy Conservation Act and Fuel Poverty initiative
includes an overall target to improve the energy efficiency of both private and public housing. “Coldbuster” grants, mainly to address fuel poverty, are available to help eligible residents introduce energy conservation measures such as improved insulation and efficient boilers into their homes The planned maintenance of Council housing stock and associated work to meet the Decent Homes Standard include improving energy efficiency.
i. The Unitary Development Plan includes a strategic policy to support
development which addresses reducing or minimising fossil fuel consumption and has development policies which seek to conserve energy and encourage the incorporation of renewable energy elements within new development. Planning applications are required to be accompanied by a Sustainability Statement which should address energy issues. Planning policies on energy and climate change will be strengthened with progress on the new Local Development Framework and associated planning policies and sustainability appraisals.
j. The Local Area Agreement for 2006 – 2009 includes a target to reduce fuel
poverty and increase energy efficiency in homes. k. The Council’s Sustainable Transport and Travel Awareness work is aimed at
changing modal split, reducing congestion, and promoting sustainable travel policies. The green travel plan officers help schools and businesses reduce dependency on private cars. This will help to constrain CO2 emissions from vehicle use.
l. NPS Property Services provides energy and water management services for
RBK and undertake the co-ordination and control of energy and water management for RBK premises, housing stock and schools. This includes professional technical support and advice, monitoring of energy and water use, and Energy Surveys and ratings.
m. Climate change is a global problem the partnership with Gwanak Gu provides
opportunities to work on this international issue together and to share learning and experiences.
25. Work on these and other initiatives will continue and develop in parallel with the
development of the energy strategy. CLIMATE CHANGE OR ENERGY STRATEGY? 26. The immediate priority is to address the findings and recommendations of the CEN
report, the draft Internal Audit Report, and to respond to the residents’ petition. The recommendations in the reports are such that a major piece of work is required demanding officer time and resources. If successful this work will secure financial efficiency benefits, social benefits and will make a significant contribution to the borough’s climate change impacts and in particular to mitigation and addressing CO2 emissions.
27. An Energy Strategy does not address all the matters pertinent to Climate Change.
These matters include global warming gases, other than CO2, flood and other weather impacts, the need for long term adaptation and shorter term emergency
E8
planning. Many of these issues are already addressed comprehensively within existing Council activities eg Emergency Planning and Business Continuity arrangements. In order to ensure that CO2 emissions are measured, managed and monitored in an Energy Strategy it is now considered to be good practice that this should be developed under the umbrella of a Climate Change Strategy.
28. It is therefore proposed to develop a Climate Change Strategy and to prioritise as
the first activity the development of the Energy Strategy. This will ensure that the focus on energy is maintained and that other climate change matters will also be addressed.
THE NOTTINGHAM DECLARATION 29. Almost 200 local authorities have signed the Nottingham Declaration. Of these 14
are London boroughs which include Sutton, Richmond and Croydon 30. It is endorsed by the Environment Agency, the I&DEA, ICLEI (the worldwide
association of local governments concerned with sustainability), the Local Government Association, the Carbon Trust, the UK Climate Impacts Programme, and the Energy Saving Trust which administers it and provides support to signatories.
31. A copy of the declaration is at Annexe 1 to this report. To demonstrate the
Council’s commitment to Climate Change it is proposed that the Council signs the Nottingham Declaration.
32. In signing the voluntary declaration the Council agrees, over a period of two years,
to develop plans with partners and local communities to progressively address the causes and impacts of climate changes.
33. The Council already has a number of mechanisms and policies in place that will
facilitate meeting this commitment. These include the Environmental Awareness Strategy, the Positive Environment Kingston community engagement project, planning guidance, the procurement strategy, and implementation of requirements under the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995.
RESPONSE TO DR BIRLEY’S E-PETITION 34. Dr Birley’s petition demonstrates the concern of residents about climate change and
identifies good practice for Kingston to consider. This interest is welcomed and we thank Dr Birley and the other signatories to the petition. We agree that the development of an Energy Strategy is necessary to addressing climate change and welcome the evidence that it is also a priority for residents. Dr Birley will be invited to provide further input for the development of a strategy.
PROPOSAL 35. It is proposed that in order to address the short, medium and long-term implications
for Kingston and its residents of climate change a Climate Change Strategy will be developed. It will address both mitigation and adaptation. Its coverage should include energy matters, flood risk and emergency planning, land use planning and public education. Because the impact of climate change is also on business, other
E9
Kingston organisations and the wider community the Climate change strategy will be developed in partnership with, and include business and community action. This supports both the Nottingham Declaration commitment and the Local Strategic Partnership approach to strategic planning.
36. The first and key step in addressing climate change is the development of an
energy strategy and this will be the first priority. 37. The energy strategy will cover the Council’s role as Community Leader, Planning
Authority, and service provider and major consumer of resources. It will address energy demand in public sector buildings, housing, and business and industry; and energy supply – conventional and alternative. It will consider transport energy, energy investment, and where practical energy security; and fuel poverty within the overall requirement to address energy efficiency in all residential accommodation. And it will be supported by short, medium and long term action plans and corporate reporting framework.
38. A comprehensive energy strategy would address gaps in activities and in controls.
It would also ensure that the Council is meeting national and international imperatives and protect the environment, economy and future well being of the borough and its residents.
39. The energy strategy will include an effective energy management strategy which
deals with the Council’s own energy use. This will address energy demand and energy supply and ensure that all necessary control, monitoring and reporting systems are put in place.
40. A good overarching climate change strategy and an energy strategy that
incorporate clear targets and actions can play a key role in successful funding bids. A good energy strategy can demonstrate to funding agencies the knowledge the organisation has of its own stock and estate and where opportunities for improvements are.
41. A time limited working group will be established to develop the strategy and to
ensure it comprehensively addresses the recommendations in the CEN report, the recommendations of the Environment and Overview Panel, the draft Internal Audit report, the issues raised in Dr Birley’s petition, and all service areas; and includes representatives from all departments with specific responsibility for energy management or energy policy. The Working Group will be lead by the Executive Member for Sustainability and Biodiversity with support from the Head of Environment & Sustainability and other appropriate officers.
42. To expedite the development of the strategy and in the absence of a dedicated
officer to support this work the Executive is recommended to authorise the Head of Environment & Sustainability to identify up to £40,000 from existing budgets to provide such a resource.
43. To demonstrate its commitment the Council will sign the Nottingham Declaration on
Climate Change.
E10
PROCESS AND TIMETABLE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A CLIMATE CHANGE AND ENERGY STRATEGY 44. In order to ensure the development of a comprehensive energy strategy as
described in this report the timetable below is proposed. 45. In parallel with the development of the strategy the existing initiatives to tackle the
issue will continue to be developed and practical actions taken.
Energy Strategy Development Timetable 20 March 2007 Report to Executive
By 30 April 20 07
Brief for supporting resource for working group written and agreed with Executive Member Resource to support the work identified
By 30 April 2007 Draft Brief for the Energy Strategy working group to address the issues identified in this report
By Mid May 2007 Identify members of working group and hold first meeting
Mid May to September 2007
Evidence gathering (building on CEN report and draft internal audit report) and identification of gaps Engagement with local interest groups and appropriate organisations
By 31 October 2007 1st Draft Energy Strategy available including initial short, medium and long term action plan, and first year action plan.
November 2007 Public Consultation
January 2008 2nd Draft Energy Strategy to Executive
February 2008 Scrutiny consideration of the 2nd Draft Energy Strategy
April 2008 Final Energy Strategy adopted by Executive 46. The timetable is such to ensure that all issues and services are addressed; that all
necessary personnel and organisations are appropriately involved in the development of the strategy; that proper scrutiny is given; and to accommodate committee deadlines. However depending on the progress made over the summer and autumn there may be some flexibility that allows the strategy to be adopted earlier; but it will be adopted within the next municipal year.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS 47. The implementation of an effective Energy Strategy will help to reduce CO2
emissions and mitigate the impacts of Climate Change. 48. The local impacts of climate change are likely to be unpredictable weather patterns
such as increased storm and wind intensity, flooding, and prolonged summer heat and drought. This could lead to more frequent flooding, storm damage, summer
E11
water shortages, and increased incidence of heat induced illness or death. The 2006 water restrictions in this area extended into 2007.
49. An effective energy and climate change strategy will ensure that RBK takes the
necessary decisions to adapt to these new conditions. This will help protect the infrastructure, homes and health of the borough’s residents and businesses.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 50. There are short and longer term financial implications of this report. 51. The report contains a request for approval to spend up to £40,000 to secure the
necessary resources to expedite the energy strategy. This will be secured out of existing revenue budgets. It is however to be expected that the development of the energy strategy will provide longer term savings and help control the costs of climate change.
52. The past two years have seen increasing energy prices and improved energy
management, monitoring and control will enable costs to be controlled and invest to save opportunities realised. The sooner the energy strategy is in place the sooner potential savings can be quantified and realised.
53. The energy strategy itself will include consideration of financial implications
including “invest to save” and funding opportunities. Background papers: held by Frances Smith (author of the report), 020 8547 4758; e-mail: frances.smith@rbk.Kingston,gov.uk 1. Report to Environment and Neighbourhoods Overview Panel 30 September 2004 2. CEN Sustainable Energy Report to Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames
Environment and Neighbourhoods Overview Panel 3. Draft Internal Audit Report Energy and Water Management April 2006 4. The Nottingham Declaration on Climate Change 5. Green light to clean power – the Mayor’s Energy Strategy
http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/environment/energy/index.jsp 6. Action today to protect tomorrow – the Mayor’s Climate Change Action Plan
http://www.london.gov.uk/mayor/environment/climate-change/ccap/index.jsp 7. UK climate change programme 2006
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/climatechange/uk/ukccp/pdf/ukccp06-all.pdf 8. The Stern review report on the economics of Climate Change November 2006 www.hm-
treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/stern_review_economics_climate_change/stern_review_report.cfm
9. Climate Change 2007 The IPCC 4th Assessment report – summary for policy makers http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
10. Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Unitary Development Plan First Alteration 2005
We acknowledge that
• Evidence shows that climate change is occurring.
• Climate change will continue to have far reaching effects on the UK’s people and places, economy, society andenvironment.
We welcome the
• Social, economic and environmental benefits which come from combating climate change.
• Emissions targets agreed by central government and the programme for delivering change, as set out in the UKClimate Change Programme.
• Opportunity for local government to lead the response at a local level, encouraging and helping local residents,local businesses and other organisations - to reduce their energy costs, to reduce congestion, to adapt to theimpacts of climate change, to improve the local environment and to deal with fuel poverty in our communities.
• Endorsement of this declaration by central government.
We commit our Council from this date to
• Work with central government to contribute, at a local level, to the delivery of the UK Climate Change Programme,the Kyoto Protocol and the target for carbon dioxide reduction by 2010.
• Participate in local and regional networks for support.
• Within the next two years develop plans with our partners and local communities to progressively address thecauses and the impacts of climate change, according to our local priorities, securing maximum benefit for ourcommunities.
• Publicly declare, within appropriate plans and strategies, the commitment to achieve a significant reduction ofgreenhouse gas emissions from our own authority’s operations, especially energy sourcing and use, travel andtransport, waste production and disposal and the purchasing of goods and services.
• Assess the risk associated with climate change and the implications for our services and our communities ofclimate change impacts and adapt accordingly.
• Encourage all sectors in our local community to take the opportunity to adapt to the impacts of climate change, toreduce their own greenhouse gas emissions and to make public their commitment to action.
• Monitor the progress of our plans against the actions needed and publish the results.
Councilacknowledges the increasing impact that climate change will have on our communityduring the 21st century and commits to tackling the causes and effects of a changingclimate on our city/county/borough/district.
Chief ExecutiveLeader of the Council
Minister of StateClimate Change and
Environment
Office of the Deputy
Prime Minister
The NottinghamDeclarationon Climate Change
APPENDIX F Executive, 20 March 2007
GREEN SPACES STRATEGY Report by the Director of Environmental Services Executive Member for Sustainability and Biodiversity
Purpose The report informs the Executive of the intention to develop a long-term strategy for the Council’s Green Spaces, the Strategy will secure the necessary investment and improvement to meet the Council’s priorities; and sets out the process for the development of the Strategy. Action proposed by the Executive Member for Sustainability and Biodiversity: The Executive is requested to approve 1. the multifunctional approach to developing a Green Spaces Strategy; and 2. the process for consultation and the associated timetable for the development of the
Strategy. Reason for action proposed To ensure that the future management and maintenance of Kingston’s green spaces is developed within a strategic policy framework. BACKGROUND 1. In 2004 an Improvement Review of Kingston’s Parks and Grounds (IRPG) was
undertaken to plan how the service should be delivered in the future. The systematic review which included public and stakeholder consultation provided information for a set of strategic principles which would guide the procurement process of future contractors and form the basis for a ten-year Green Space Strategy.
2. The subsequent report (Executive 18 January 2005) and procurement review explored the way forward for the Council with respect to all matters relating to the Parks and Grounds service. The report also explored different forms of contractual arrangements and the proposed a procurement process for the appointment of new contractors. Much of that report is still wholly relevant.
3. In February 2006 Quadron Services took over the contractual management of the Parks and Grounds Service in sole partnership with Kingston. The contract is initially for 10 years with an opportunity to extend for a further 5 years.
4. There are now several drivers for a strategy to guide and develop the service in the future. A priority is the new partnership arrangements with Quadron Services Ltd. Another driver is the recent Open Space Assessment (Atkins 2006) which has been completed as part of the LDF process and in response to guidance emphasising the value of recreational and open space requirements, most notably Planning Policy Guidance 17 (PPG17, 2002). This study includes an assessment of the quality,
F2
quantity and value of parks and open spaces in Kingston and identifies whether provision meets local needs.
5. In addition, The Greater London Authority London Plan (Feb 2004) states that London Boroughs should prepare Open Space Strategies (Policy 3D.11.) to understand the supply and demand of open spaces and identify ways of protecting, creating and enhancing them.
6. Current influential RBK policies and strategies which are either in preparation or adopted are:
a. Changing Kingston – Choosing our Future (February 2007) b. LA21 Plan 2000 c. RBK Unitary Development Plan (adopted 2005) d. The Community Plan 2004-2009 e. Policy Programme 2006-2010 f. Cultural Strategy 2007-2012 g. Waste Strategy August 2004 h. A Play Strategy 2004-2008 i. Environmental Awareness Strategy 2006 j. Biodiversity Action Plan 2004 k. Tree Strategy (in preparation) l. Allotment Strategy (in preparation) m. Local Development Framework (in preparation) n. Children and Young People’s Plan 2006-2010
THE PROPOSED STRATEGY 7. It is proposed that the framework for a Green Spaces Strategy be developed
around ten top line functions under which the strategic principles as agreed in the Executive report from January 2005 will fit. This multifunctional approach moves away from the ‘one size fits all’ historic philosophy of parks and grounds management.
8. The proposed ten top line functions (listed below) have been designed by the Countryside Agency in response to DEFRA’s Rural Strategy 2004. This broad multifunctional approach allows scope to incorporate and integrate the suite of polices and strategies previously discussed and any future strategies that appear as a result of resident’s demands and/or legislative changes into one over-arching document.
9. A multifunctional approach opens up opportunity for external funding especially to active voluntary and community groups that support the ethos of the strategy, such as ‘Friends of’ or the Hogsmill Action Group. In addition, these functions must be either fully or partially met to apply for to the Heritage Lottery Fund through the SW Green Arc (an established partnership of urban-fringe London Boroughs, Surrey CC, Countryside Agency and Groundwork to improve access from the green belt into urban areas. This may entail land purchase in the future).
F3
10. The report to Executive in January 2005 agreed ten strategic principles for the
development of the Council’s Green Spaces Strategy. These principles are still considered to be sound and should be used in the work to be undertaken. They are:
a. To plan and manage our green space to maximise community benefit b. To use our resources efficiently, effectively and flexibly c. To make them welcoming and accessible d. To make sure people feel safe e. To provide young people with a place to ‘hangout’ and residents with a place
to play sport f. To enhance play facilities g. To contribute to the health and well-being of residents h. To protect the natural environment i. To secure sustainable development/sustainability j. To support the local economy
11. A new Cultural Strategy for Kingston is in preparation and will be published in 2007.
The Strategy will cover the period leading up to the Olympic and Paralympic Games in London in 2012. It will emphasise the need to use sensitively Green and Open Spaces for sporting activity. This includes the possible use of green spaces for training facilities for athletes in disciplines such as archery.
12. The Action Plan for the Cultural Strategy includes the development of policies for Tennis court and Football pitch usage. ‘Participation in Sports’ and ‘The environment as a cultural issue’ are also key themes reflecting the importance of sensitive use of green spaces in areas such as the Hogsmill river corridor.
13. The Children and Young People’s Plan contains as a key objective ‘To improve access to cultural opportunities for all children and young people which support health and well being, achievement and enjoyment’.
14. It is intended that the Green Spaces Strategy remains ‘live’ for the 10-15 year term of the current grounds maintenance provision. It will be developed through a collaborative and consensual relationship with our external partners, Quadron Services and pertinent internal departments, primarily Planning and Development, Leisure and Lifelong Learning Services, Neighbourhood Services and Environment and Sustainability.
15. An Allotment Strategy and Tree Strategy are being developed in parallel with the Green Spaces Strategy. These two strategies will be integrated into the GSS, but will be stand alone policies in their own right. Each strategy will cover existing policy commitments in each distinct area. For example it will explore the possibility of using currently vacant allotment sites to set up a market garden for people with mental health problems.
INTEGRATION OF THE TOP LINE FUNCTIONS WITH THE STRATEGIC PRINCIPLES 16. Where appropriate the top line functions (TF) are described alongside the most
clearly related strategic principle (SP). However, it is not the intention to follow slavishly all the functional headings to make the strategic principles fit, rather, allow evolution of each through discussion and consultation so that the needs of the
F4
Kingston community are met. Above all, the GSS should seek to ensure effective, wise and responsible resource use whilst allowing green spaces to evolve in harmony with the environment. And that the strategy should cover all of the issues that surround the myriad of green spaces and their diverse uses.
17. There follows the description of the functions as laid down by the Countryside Agency with the relevant RBK strategic principles as agreed by Executive in January 2005.
i. A bridge to the country (TF1) – an urban network of parks, woodland and other green spaces where linked footpaths, bridleways and cycle paths form continuous green corridors. To make green spaces feel welcoming and accessible (SP3)- with clear signs and information (in community languages where appropriate) and better paths and toilets.
ii. A gateway to the town – the quality of open spaces management along minor and major transport routes are an indicator and advertisement of the quality of a town or city (TF2). To make sure people feel safe (SP4) – through a visible presence in the parks, landscape planning, additional security measures such as CCTV and help points and the removal of railings where appropriate.
iii. A health centre (TF3) – accessible and attractive green spaces close to where people live and work provide valuable respite from the stresses of urban living. To contribute to the health and well-being of residents (SP6) – through more attractive green space and better leisure and sport provision and integrated sports development.
iv. A classroom (TF4) – green space provides hands-on learning opportunities and occasion for social development and interaction. To provide young people with places to ‘hangout’ and play sport. To enhance play facilities (SP5) – taking an integrated approach to facilities for children with disabilities with an exemplar park in each neighbourhood and to support this play activity with a visible adult at key times.
v. A recycling and renewable energy centre (TF5). Green spaces play an important part in the sustainable management of waste, water and pollution generated in urban areas. To secure sustainable development/sustainability (SP8) – both in the management of our parks and open spaces and for the Borough and its community through the contribution parks and open spaces can make.
vi. A productive landscape (TR6) – this heading can be interpreted in to two strategic principles – the development of an Allotment Strategy. To use our resources efficiently, effectively and flexibly (SP2) and To support the local economy (SP9) through use of local contractors in same areas and by developing apprenticeship/training scheme with main contractor.
vii. A cultural legacy(TR7) – in line with the principles, aims and objectives of the emerging Cultural Strategy 2007-2012.
viii. A place for sustainable living (TR8)- provides residents with well-planned environmental infrastructure, green spaces and links to surrounding areas. To plan and manage our green spaces to maximise community benefit (SP1)
ix. An engine for regeneration (TR9)- strategies for local regeneration help communities develop their own confidence, skills and prospects. Communities that are fully involved bring about environmental improvements
F5
that make their neighbourhoods more liveable. To involve the community (SP10)- through effective communication, stronger links with Neighbourhood committees, further self-management of allotments and encouraging ‘Friends of’ groups.
x. A nature reserve (TR10)- thriving wildlife is an integral part, and indicator, of a sustainable landscape. To protect the natural environment (SP7) – by enhancing and conserving biodiversity, and avoiding harm through sensitive management practices.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE STRATEGY, TIMESCALE AND CONSULTATION 18. The production of the Green Space Strategy will be project managed by the
Environmental Co-ordination Unit Manager. A steering group of RBK and Quadron officers have met to discuss the content of this report. Further meetings will establish a long term vision, agreed aims, objectives and action plans and specific section authors. Each section author will in turn focus on a key function and action plan.
19. The role of the Neighbourhood Committees in the development of this Strategy is crucial. The decision as to how to prioritise services and approaches within each Neighbourhood must be a choice of that Neighbourhood’s Committee and must take account of that Neighbourhood’s local needs and plans for the future. To that end it is intended to have two periods of discussion and consultation with Neighbourhoods. The first will be informal (workshops / working group meetings to which all Members will be invited) and will be designed to identify issues and proposals. The second will be more formal (through the Committee meeting process) and will seek the Neighbourhood Committee’s endorsement of the proposals contained within the draft Strategy.
20. The evidence gathering, plan preparation, neighbourhood and stakeholder’s consultation will be undertaken using a range of methods. For example open forum workshops with Members and stakeholders, face to face interviews, on-line questionnaires and regular meetings with the steering group. The aim of this area of work is to ensure that the strategy responds to current local needs and issues within a longer-term vision.
21. A draft Green Spaces Strategy will be produced for formal public consultation in September 2007 with action plans and evaluation and monitoring methods that deliver the functions and strategic principles using a common template. This draft will be circulated to stakeholder organisations and the general public including representative bodies for comment.
22. Since the IRPG survey (2004) there have been further surveys to seek resident’s views on parks and open spaces. These have been completed in response to the Open Space Study (2005), to inform the Environmental Awareness Strategy (2006), and the 2005 Kingston Residents Survey (MORI). The trend of these and future demographic surveys will help steer and refine the strategy over its lifetime.
23. The proposed timetable for the development of the Green Spaces Strategy is as
follows:
F6
Green Spaces Strategy Development Timetable March 2007 Process agreed by Executive
April to August
Plan preparation, Evidence gathering, detailed discussion with Neighbourhoods and stakeholders
September and October
Public consultation
November Approval of the 1st Draft GSS by Executive
November Consideration of the 1st Draft GSS by Scrutiny
November Formal Consultation with Neighbourhood Committee’s
December and January 2008
Final preparation of the GSS
February 2008
Adoption of the Final GSS by Executive
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS 24. Green space is a vital part of the public realm and its management is a barometer
of the community (ODPM 2002). The Green Spaces Strategy will set out a long-term vision for using Kingston’s green spaces based on clear assessment of the local community’s current and future needs and opportunities within the strategic policy framework.
25. Well managed and designed green spaces whatever their size or location should provide safe and attractive havens for people and wildlife. The management of green spaces is an important contributing factor to the interests of everyone whether they visit them or not. Green spaces contribute to our environmental infrastructure and therefore should be considered as a key indicator in the natural environmental health of the area.
26. A Green Space Strategy encompasses cross-cutting partnerships and participation that contributes to the wider objectives of the council, supports national and regional policy objectives, establishes action plans that set out management and maintenance principles and identifies priorities to ensure that capital and revenue funds are allocated to meet performance standards.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 27. The preparation and production of the Green Spaces Strategy can be undertaken
within existing budgets. 28. It is intended that the Draft Strategy will set out an investment programme for the
improvement of the parks. Due consideration will need to be given about the affordability of that investment programme during the consultation on, and completion of, the Strategy. Consideration of third party funding and opportunities for obtaining that will also be important.
F7
Joint Report Authors: Rob Dickson, Head of Environment & Sustainability, 020 8547 4705 and Marie-Claire Edwards, Environmental Co-ordination Unit Manger, 020 8547 5372 Background papers : held by Marie-Claire Edwards, 020 8547 5372 e-mail: Marie-Claire.Edwards@rbk.kingston.gov.uk Liberal Democrat Manifesto 2006 Parks and Grounds Improvement Review and Procurement of Service Appendix G - Executive Report (January 2005) The countryside in and around towns – a vision for connecting town and country in the pursuit of sustainable development – The Countryside Agency (January 2005) Rural Strategy DEFRA (July 2004) Kingston Open Space Assessment – Atkins (May 2006) Green Space Strategies – a good practice guide CABEspace (2003) Living places: Cleaner, Safer, Greener – ODPM (October 2002) Kingston Residents Survey 2005 (MORI). The Greater London Authority London Plan (Feb 2004) (Policy 3D.11.)
APPENDIX G Executive, 20 March 2007
REVIEW OF THE ROLES AND FUNCTIONS OF NEIGHBOURHOOD COMMITTEES Report by the Head of Democratic Services and Partnership Leader of the Council
Purpose To put forward for consideration the proposals developed by the Constitutional Review Working Group following a review of the roles and functions of Neighbourhood Committees. Action proposed by the Leader of the Council: The Executive is requested to consider the proposals of the Review Group as set out in Annex 2 and summarised in paragraphs 6-12 of this report and agree to recommend to Council the necessary changes to the Constitution in relation to Recommendation 20. Reason for action proposed To implement changes to develop the roles and functions of Neighbourhood Committees.
BACKGROUND 1 It will be recalled that during 2005 a Constitutional Review was undertaken with
assistance from Professor Steve Leach, from De Montfort University. In considering his original report on 7 February 2006, the Executive agreed that further work should be commissioned from him on developing the role of our Neighbourhood Committees.
2 This further work was carried out during the summer of 2006 leading to the
production of a second report from Professor Leach. On 9 October 2006 this second report was considered by the Constitutional Review Working Group that had previously been established by the Executive. At that meeting it was agreed that the report should be discussed at a Member Workshop (which subsequently took place on 4 December 2006) and then formally considered by each Neighbourhood Committee, with views being reported back. The outcome of this process was reported to the Working Group on 5 March 2007.
3 A summary of the views expressed at the Councillors’ workshop, together with the
views and comments of the Neighbourhood Committees, as submitted to the Working Group, are set out in Annex 1.
4 Copies of Professor Leach’s full report have already been circulated to all Members,
but further copies are available from Democratic Support on request. PROPOSALS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW WORKING GROUP 5 At its meeting on 5 March the Working Group gave further consideration to the
report from Professor Leach and, in particular, the recommendations. For ease of reference an updated version of what was Annex 2 to the Review Group’s Agenda
G2
is attached as Annex 2 to this report. This sets out the recommendations from Professor Leach’s report and incorporates the views of the Working Group on each. In summary, the position is set out below.
The Decision Making role of Neighbourhood Committees (recs 1-5) 6 The Group agreed that the proposals for the possible restructuring of
Neighbourhood meetings and for undertaking an internal review of the content of Neighbourhood Committee agendas were both matters for individual Neighbourhood Committees to consider themselves. It was, however, noted that there were potential resource implications in establishing additional Neighbourhood Committee meetings.
7 So far as Recommendation 3 is concerned the Group agreed that it would be useful
to have a guidelines document drawn up along the lines suggested by Professor Leach though on the basis that this did only represent guidelines and was not in anyway regarded as being a prescriptive Code of Practice. Recommendations 4 and 5 relating to the role of Chairs & Co-Chairs of Neighbourhood Committees and the proposal that a seminar should be arranged for all Members to help them understand more fully the powers that already exist were both felt to be matters that could be addressed through the current Member Training & Development Needs Assessment.
Involvement of Neighbourhood Committees in Policy Development & Review (recs 6-9) 8 The proposal in Recommendation 6 that policy documents submitted to
Neighbourhood Committees should be accompanied by a two-to-three page commentary drawing out the implications of the Policy for the particular Neighbourhood concerned was supported. It was felt, however, that the commentary should be prepared by the relevant officer in the Directorate concerned rather than the Neighbourhood Services Manager, but on the basis that the Neighbourhood Services Manager would have some input in terms of the potential impact on the Neighbourhood. It was also felt that, where appropriate, alternative forms of presentation (e.g. PowerPoint) should be considered for use at Neighbourhood meetings.
9 The other recommendations in this section were generally supported in that, by and
large, they reflected what already happened in any event. Community Leadership and Neighbourhood Committees (recs 10-16) 10 The Group felt that they needed more time, with a fuller report, to consider the
proposals set out by Professor Leach for establishing (or strengthening) local partnerships and for developing local community strategies. It was recognised that there was already a fair degree of Community engagement work being undertaken within Neighbourhoods and, of course, the Community Action Partnership in Norbiton was a prime example. The proposals in this section of the report needed to be considered also in the context of the Changing Kingston – Choosing Our Future Medium Term Plan given, in particular, that there were no additional resources within the 2007/08 Budget to carry this forward.
G3
Support for Enhanced Neighbourhood Working (recs 17-20) 11 Similarly the Group agreed to give further consideration to the proposals regarding
the status and level of remuneration of Neighbourhood Services Managers and the nomination of Link Officers in relevant service areas. There were different views about the desirability and practicality of change. It was felt that more clarity was needed in respect of their respective roles. In any event our way forward had to be affordable and this would need to be considered in the context of the new `place shaping’ role for local authorities envisaged in the Local Government White Paper and, of course, the ongoing debate on Changing Kingston – Choosing Our Future.
12 The proposal set out in Recommendation 19 that the Liaison Panel of Executive
Members and Neighbourhood Chairs & Co-Chairs should now be established and meet 2 to 3 times a year was agreed. So far as Recommendation 20 was concerned, the approach set out for dealing with what were judged to be strategic issues under consideration by the Kingston Town Neighbourhood Committee was agreed though it was recognised that, in practice, there were likely to be relatively few incidences when the arrangement needed to be put into practice.
RESOURCE IMPLICATIONS 13 As was set out in the report to the Working Group, no provision has been made in
the 2007-08 Budget for the cost of implementing the second phase of the Constitutional Review. As is clear from the report there could be resource implications in a number of areas including, for example, the cost of additional meetings of Neighbourhood Committees; any proposed enhancement of the role of Neighbourhood Services Managers; the development of the community leadership role, etc. Any decisions about future resourcing will have to be considered within the context of Changing Kingston – Choosing our Future. Choosing to do something now can be achieved by reallocating the resources which will be available to the Council. As will be known, the Executive’s earlier decision in October 2006 to allocate a new specific resource to the Scrutiny Panel had to be considered in the proposals approved by Council on 28 February against the resources available for 2007/8, resulting in a reduction in the total resource available for Democratic Support, which will have some impact on the capacity to support Scrutiny.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS 14 Nothing specific arising from this report. Background Papers Held by Andrew Bessant (author of report) on 020 8547 4628 Email: andrew.bessant@rbk.kingston.gov.uk
1. Review of the Roles and Functions of Neighbourhood Committees. – Report by Professor Steve Leach – De Monfort University September 2006.
2. Agenda for 5 March meeting of the Constitutional Review Working Group
G4
ANNEX 1
SUMMARY OF VIEWS COUNCILLORS WORKSHOP 1. A note summarising the various contributions from those present was submitted to the
Working Group. The main issues arising in the discussion can be summarised as follows:
• A concern on the part of some members that the proposals represented an increase in
bureaucracy and/or more meetings. • The need for Neighbourhood Committees to better understand the powers they
already had and the importance of their having financial responsibility for services if they were responsible in some way for their delivery.
• The need for a degree of structural change if some of the proposals were to be implemented.
• Support for the enhancement of the role of Neighbourhood Services Managers to increase their effectiveness.
• Support for the proposal for summaries of policy matters and more involvement in policy development.
• There were already a number of examples of Neighbourhood level Community Leadership/Engagement Initiatives.
• The need to make better use of the mechanisms that already existed to stimulate and generate debates and improve decision making.
• The need for more involvement from other directorates (i.e. other than Environmental Services) in the work of Neighbourhoods
VIEWS OF THE NEIGHBOURHOOD COMMITTEES
Kingston Town (7 February 2007)
2. The Committee agreed the following comments for submission to the Executive: The Decision-Making Role of Neighbourhood Committees (NC) • Same number of meetings - Planning, Highways & Transportation sub committee to
alternate with General including Environment sub committee • An internal review of the content of NC agendas should be undertaken - Neighbourhood
Services Managers to be part of review. • Neighbourhood Services Managers to be involved in drawing up guidelines on the
conduct of NC business meetings. • Neighbourhood Services staff will need to be focussed on Community Engagement. Involvement of Neighbourhood Committees in Policy Development and Review • Policy Document: Support recommendations 6-9 with the addition of clarifying what
community engagement has taken place and will take place and and/or how the Policy is shared with the community.
Community Leadership and Neighbourhood Committees • Support recommendations 10 – 16. The Community Action Partnership (CAP) report will
be considered by the Neighbourhood in March.
G5
Support for enhanced Neighbourhood working • Status of Neighbourhood Service Managers is important. They must be able to link with
other Council services and report to Neighbourhood Members. • Heavy support for link Officers needed. • Annual Report to Chairs Forum or Neighbourhood Committee. • Attendance of Officers at Business Meetings. • Neighbourhood Services Managers to be involved in the liaison panel (executive
members, Chairs and Co-Chairs of Neighbourhoods) which should be established and meet 2-3 times per year.
Summary • Fully support recommendations. • Maximise Neighbourhood Services Manager’s involvement. • Neighbourhood Services staff will also need to be focussed on
Community Engagement. • Encourage involvement by all areas of Council and external
partners. • Would like to see Neighbourhood Services move to a more
central location (Chief Executive) NOW rather than later.
Surbiton (8 February 2007)
3. The Committee originally decided that a special meeting should be held to consider the report. In the event, it wasn’t possible to arrange that within the timescale and it was agreed that views would be submitted on behalf of the two Party Groups represented on the Committee. Set out below are views received on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Members of the Committee. Views from the Conservative Members were received later and we attended separately.
Decision-Making Role of Neighbourhood Committees Members are generally supportive of the recommendations made to enable a more efficient, consistent approach to neighbourhood business and make the following comments:
- Options for future meetings: An amended form of Option B is preferred on the basis of 8 ordinary meetings and 2 for policy / development & emergency items
- There are concerns that the mechanism for streamlining the decision-making process and reducing the repetition of the same item appearing at committee is unrealistic.
- There should be more use of Chair’s action and working groups to oversee the public consultation process
- Decisions on some items such as street naming and relatively minor items could be delegated to Ward Councillors/Co-Chairs.
- Site inspections before the meeting should only be used if necessary. - The alert system for highlighting controversial issues is not felt to be necessary. - The Neighbourhood manager/report author/democratic support officer should plan a
consistent approach to each item and consult with Chair or Co-Chairs. - It is not felt that more use of deferring decisions, in particular where this relates to
matters of assessing public opinion, would be beneficial. - The required action and time frame should be understood and facilitated by discussion
at follow up meetings - The Neighbourhood Committee should be provided with information on the
implementation of items previously agreed.
G6
Involvement of Neighbourhood Committees in Policy Development and Review Members support the recommendations made to improve the neighbourhoods’ opportunity for influencing the development of policy. In particular the need to encourage brief, well written and to the point reports and the opportunity to influence major developments e.g. extended schools as well as leisure activities and parks etc. was highlighted. Community Leadership and Neighbourhood Committees In principle, Members support the process that Prof Leach has set out for two pilot schemes in each neighbourhood, one in an area with strong existing local groups and identity and one in an area without. The aim being, over time, to create a ‘bottom-up’, partnership approach with the neighbourhoods playing a lead role in developing community strategies covering all areas of the neighbourhood. The Alpha Road Estate is suggested as an area for the local partnership pilot in the Surbiton Neighbourhood. However, more detail is required on the operation of the local partnership arrangements as at this stage the proposals are too vague. Central Surbiton is suggested as a possible area for the second pilot, focusing on the development of a local community strategy. This pilot could make use of links with the existing local residents’ association. Support for enhanced neighbourhood working The recommendations for enhanced neighbourhood working are generally supported and the following issues highlighted:
- The Neighbourhood Services Managers’ involvement be maximised - The work of Neighbourhood Services be focussed on community engagement - The status of Neighbourhood Services be raised and all areas of the Council and
external partners be strongly encouraged to support the Neighbourhoods - There is a desire for Neighbourhood Services to move to a more central location
(Chief Executive), together with relevant support staff NOW rather than later. - Directors and Heads of Service meet Neighbourhood Services Managers 2/3 times a
year. 4. In addition, views of an individual Surbiton resident were submitted at the meeting.
South of the Borough (14 February 2007)
5. The Committee confirmed that its Members were committed to the Neighbourhood
system and supportive of the proposals made by Professor Leach. Members also made further comments at the meeting under the following themes:
The Decision-Making Role of Neighbourhood Committees • Benefits could be achieved for both the conduct of business and residents’ understanding
of the meetings if different aspects of the Neighbourhood’s work was carried out in separate meetings.
• Members expressed the view that the choice of meeting arrangements should be left to the individual Neighbourhoods to decide based on which best suited the needs of their area. Whilst in South of the Borough a combined Highways and Planning Sub-Committee
G7
alternating with general purpose meetings might be the best solution, in other neighbourhoods the large amount of planning applications could make this arrangement difficult. Different patterns of meetings could be tried to see which worked best in practice.
• It was agreed that the heavy focus on highways matters tended to squeeze out some of the broader issues that the Neighbourhood was developing work on.
Community Leadership and Neighbourhood Committees • The suggestion of strengthening the existing Community Action Partnership in Norbiton
with a view to establishing a local partnership needs further clarification. • More widespread and systematic use of community forums, street-level meetings with
residents and working groups would be supported as a way of engaging with residents to tackle issues.
Support for enhanced Neighbourhood working • The strengthening and development of the position of the Neighbourhood Services
Manager is fully supported. The Neighbourhood Services Manager is the “right hand man” of neighbourhood work and vital to the further development of the neighbourhood system.
• To better facilitate their increased role with other areas, including education and housing, Neighbourhood Services should be relocated to a central position under the Council’s structure. The Chief Executive’s Directorate is suggested as a suitable location.
Maldens & Coombe (14 February 2007)
6. The Committee were not able to give detailed consideration to the report at their
meeting and agreed to authorise the Head of Democratic Services & Partnership, in consultation with the Co-chair (Councillor David Edwards) to submit individual comments received from members of the Committee. These were attached separately.
HOUSING CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEE 7. At its meeting on 20 February the Housing Consultative Committee (meeting jointly
with the Leaseholders’ Forum) considered a report from the Head of Housing on proposals for enhancing community involvement in the work of the Housing Service. The report made reference to Professor Leach’s work and the Consultative Committee expressed its concern that it had not had an opportunity to consider those proposals. It decided, therefore, to set up a Working Group to consider further the Head of Housing’s report and that from Professor Leach and hoped to be able to submit comments to the Working Group.
G8
Professor Steve Leach Report – Summary SURBITON NEIGHBOURHOOD CONSERVATIVE CLLRS Thursday 1st March (Guildhall) 1. Introduction The view expressed by leading members and officers was that the current Neighbourhood Committee system had ‘plateaued’ in recent years and needs to be expanded in ways which reflect development. Although the Council has a national reputation for its neighbourhood working, this is not reflected in the organisational structures. 2. The Decision Making Role of Neighbourhood Committees Concerns over operation of NCs:
- The domination of local transport, highways and environmental issues are ‘crowding out’ other issues.
- This is what NCs are best at anyway, apart from local planning, and what most interests the public who turn up.
- There needs to be a clear division between those decisions made by members, and those
delegated to officers.
- All decisions appropriate to the NC should be open to public member scrutiny in the interest of transparency. Members should not be able to offload their responsibilities onto officers.
- Handling of ‘public pressure’ at meetings – A ‘red alert’ system is suggested for potentially
contentious decisions.
- Don’t really understand what this would be or how it could work in practice. - Level of directorate involvement (excl Environment) – extend decision making role and
influence into areas where NCs already have powers (libraries, policy formulation, etc)
- Many ‘powers’ possessed by NCs at present are more theoretical than practical and, unless supplemented by independent budgetary powers they are likely to remain so. We should acknowledge this and behave accordingly.
3. The Influence of Neighbourhood Committees on Policy
- Crowding out and the way draft policies are presented are at fault for the lack of involvement
in policy development. We have just established the Overview Commission to help out with policy development centrally. There’s no real need to alter the NCs activities to allow for more of the same. Consultations are quite successfully conducted within the existing framework. It is a matter of chairmanship to see to it that adequate time is allocated to various items within the Agenda.
- A 2-3 page interpretive analysis of the policy directed at the NC concerned could be provided by Neighbourhood managers (if relieved of some of their operational duties).
G9
- And who takes over the operational duties thus relieved?Is this a recipe for more staff recruitment at a time of restraint?
- NC agendas could be expanded to incorporate scrutiny of the impact of certain Neighbourhood
related policy.
- See policy development above. Additionally experience is that it is highly unlikely that cllrs from the same party as the Executive will embarrass it in public by submitting its policies to anything that smacks of criticism – such is the political culture of the controlling party.
- Scrutiny could operate by ‘calling to account’ an executive member/officer regarding the local
impact of policy, or request the Overview Commission set in motion an in-depth study.
- Can’t they do that now? If they don’t it merely bears out the point about political culture above.
4. The Role of Neighbourhood Committees in Community Leadership Strengthen the role of the NC in their profile in the work of the Council:
- A discussion forum including issues beyond those in the jurisdiction of the Council - Discussion forum = talking shop and encourages windbaggery and grandstanding on issues
over which the NC has no control. There will also be cost implications as it will give rise to either more meetings or lengthier ones or to more delegation of decision making outside the NC.
- - Ensure joined up N’hood Services and other agency service - Help each NC develop its N’hood Community Plan with local people, agencies and
organisations. - Having a plan is mere window dressing unless there are powers in the form of a budget
controlled by the NC and no-one else, to implement it. If we do go down that route we are moving perilously towards the notorious Tower Hamlets experiment of 20 years or so ago and setting up four mini-councils in the smallest Borough in London.
The Administration wants to set up working groups of local residents who will identify problems and issues within their area, and propose practical solutions. What are elected councillors for? Isn’t ‘government by focus group’ becoming rather discredited after the last 10 years? Having said that we value the input of residents associations and ad hoc issue groups which residents form themselves. The Community Action Partnership on the Cambridge Road Estate will become a pilot scheme for the proposal to set up local partnerships in community strategy which focus on four small areas within neighbourhoods where there is greatest potential for success (deprived and problematic areas) and a gradual extension in other areas to draw in the Borough. The CRE is a Housing concern. A Management Forum was established there by the Housing Committee in 1999. Similar ones followed in Alpha Road and School Lane and others were adumbrated. They were successful in so far as they had actual power to make things happen – and this meant a budget for estate improvements. Said budget was withdrawn to help fund prudential borrowing re the Decent Homes Standard. This enables the Administration to reach its goal of: ‘Establishing working groups of local residents to identify problems and issues’ and the government’s emergent ‘neighbourhood devolution agenda’.
G10
We welcome the creation of RAs where residents of an area see a need for them and fostering their participation in issues which intimately concern them and the impact of Council policy. Hence our support for the continuance of the Housing Consultative Committee, which RAs on Council estates value. But we doubt if it is the Council’s job to spend scarce resources establishing local focus groups, which will in any event be largely self-selecting in membership and which might serve to obscure rather than clarify the locus of responsibility for decision making. This may well be why the current Executive in RBK, like the present government, finds the idea so attractive. It is important that the Neighbourhood committees play a lead role in all these developments. This will require a good deal of detailed consideration and planning to get it up and running, and then space with in NC agendas to ensure its success. This space can be established by:
- Creating a sub-committee to deal with detailed highways, transport and environmental work. - This is what the whole NC does best anyway. See above. Also means yet more meetings, yet
more wasteful use of officer time, yet more expenditure devoted to matters other than actual services to actual residents.
- Differentiate NC meetings so some are business meetings and others concentrate on policy partnership and wider public involvement issues (this has been built into the programme of NC meetings for 2006/07).
See above. 5. Officer Support for Neighbourhood Working
- Structural reorganisation would not be a good use of time and resources.
- Neighbourhood managers need to be freed up to lead the next phase in development of the neighbourhood function. Operational responsibilities should be devolved to assistant managers. Their status and remuneration levels should be upgraded.
- Means more staff being paid more. Given RBK’s budgetary constraints and the pressure on
services to some of the most vulnerable in our society to reallocate resources in this way would be inexcusable.
- A series of link officers should be designated within each of the service areas which NCs have
jurisdiction.
- Time allocation should be increased 10 per cent for link officers in co-ordination with neighbourhood management work.
- More of the same. Hardly consistent with the need to save £22m in four years outlined by the
Leader at Budget Council. 6. Other Issues The Special Case of Kingston Town Centre:
- Kingston Town NC decisions sometimes affect all RBK residents and should be decided by a wider range of Councillors. An elected/advisory balance has to be struck.
- Agreed! - - If a decision is deemed to have ‘significant impact beyond the neighbourhood’s boundaries’ it
should be categorised as ‘strategic’ and referred to the Executive.
G11
- Is this a way of effectively undermining NCs’ powers on highway schemes. We note the irritation in some quarters caused by the policies adopted by M&C Neighbourhood and wonder who would categorise what policies as ‘strategic’.
The Democratic Costs of Neighbourhood Working
- Implementation would certainly involve increased costs. Link officers with directorates other than Environmental Services.
- There may be a cost associated with the requirements placed on Democratic Services. - The costs of administration should be regarded as ‘legitimate costs of democracy’, even though
there is not much scope for manoeuvre resulting from RBK’s financial settlement over the next 2-3 years.
Hardly consistent with the need to save £22m in four years outlined by the Leader at Budget Council. We find that most of the ‘problems’ are imaginary rather than real and that the ‘solutions’ proposed are at best potentially wasteful and irrelevant to providing service effectively to residents. At worst they tend towards the Tower Hamlets scenario of 4 mini-boroughs each with a growing number of meetings, consultation groups, sub-committees and staff which provide not one single new service to residents – in fact when such services are being curtailed. 7. Recommendations Restructure: - Either establish a Highways, Transport & Local Environment sub-Committee; Disagree
- Or monthly NCs with alternative business meetings and policy and development meetings. Disagree
- Internal review considering: - Reducing the number of occasions on which a particular parking scheme is considered at NC Disagree - Making more use of chair’s action in consultation oversight and reporting back Disagree on balance - Exploring scope for extending delegation to officers on non political issues Disagree, who decides what is non-political? Must be realistic about the political culture of RBK. - Arranging site inspections prior to NC meeting Agreed! A guidelines document should be drawn up to include: - A ‘red alert process’ - Full discussion prior to NC meeting to ensure consistency of approach - Capacity to defer decisions - ‘Follow up’ meetings to ensure action is facilitated Doubtful as to viability and therefore value. A job description should be developed for Chairs of NCs with an in-house training programme to familiarise them with guidelines. Training in chairing skills would be beneficial to many who undertake to chair meetings. But the post of NC chair is an annual appointment within the gift of the party group that controls the
G12
neighbourhood. They have their own concerns in making such appointments and skill in chairing isn’t always uppermost in their minds when making them. Set up seminars to explore opportunities of better facilitating decision-making powers. More talking shops not concerned with residents’ concerns.
G13
SKEL
ETO
N S
UM
MA
RY
OF
REC
OM
MEN
DA
TIO
NS
OF
REV
IEW
OF
RO
LES
AN
D F
UN
CTI
ON
S O
F N
EIG
HB
OU
RH
OO
D C
OM
MIT
TEES
Th
is s
kele
ton
sum
mar
y is
for e
ase
of q
uick
refe
renc
e on
ly a
nd s
houl
d be
con
side
red
with
refe
renc
e to
the
wor
ding
in P
rofe
ssor
Lea
ch’s
re
port
dat
ed S
epte
mbe
r 200
6 ite
m
Pro
fess
or L
each
reco
mm
enda
tion
N’h
ood
Ctte
e vi
ew
A.
Dec
isio
n-M
akin
g R
ole
1.
mee
tings
pro
gram
me
to b
e re
stru
ctur
ed
EITH
ER a
) Sub
-Ctte
e to
be
esta
blis
hed
for H
ighw
ays
/ Tra
nspo
rt /
Loca
l Env
ironm
ent
(eg
7 pe
r yea
r in
addi
tion
to P
lann
ing
Sub)
O
R
b) m
onth
ly N
’hoo
d C
ttee
mtg
s, a
ltern
atin
g bu
sine
ss w
ith p
olic
y / d
evel
opm
ent
Leav
e as
at p
rese
nt
with
ext
ra a
d ho
c if
and
whe
n re
quire
d
2.
agen
das
inte
rnal
revi
ew o
f the
con
tent
e.g
. •
redu
ce n
o of
tim
es a
sin
gle
issu
e is
con
side
red
e.g.
to d
evel
op a
par
king
sch
eme
•
mor
e us
e of
‘Cha
ir’s
actio
n’ &
WG
s to
ove
rsee
con
sulta
tion
proc
ess
• de
lega
ting
som
e ite
ms
to o
ffice
rs e
.g. s
tree
t nam
ing
• si
te in
spec
tions
bef
ore
ctte
e m
tgs
Agr
ee?
Not
hing
new
in th
is –
w
e ca
n do
this
und
er
pres
ent
arra
ngem
ents
3.
m
eetin
g co
nduc
t gu
idel
ines
to in
clud
e •
red
aler
t sys
tem
for p
ublic
pre
ssur
e ite
ms
• N
’hoo
d m
gr /
repo
rt a
utho
r / d
emoc
ratic
sup
port
offi
cer t
o pl
an c
onsi
sten
t app
roac
h to
ea
ch it
em
• m
ore
use
of d
efer
ring
to o
btai
n a
mor
e ba
lanc
ed re
pres
enta
tion
of lo
cal o
pini
on if
ne
eded
•
ensu
re re
quire
d ac
tion
is u
nder
stoo
d / f
acili
tate
d by
dis
c. a
t fol
low
-up
mee
tings
Red
ale
rt –
do
not
see
poin
t. O
ther
sug
gest
ions
to
o ex
pens
ive.
D
irect
orat
e sh
ould
pr
epar
e br
iefin
g pa
pers
–so
meo
ne
nom
inat
ed a
nd
iden
tifia
ble
4.
(Co)
Cha
ir’s
JD
& tr
aini
ng p
rogr
amm
e
• pa
rtic
ular
ly to
equ
ip to
han
dle
pres
sure
of p
ublic
opi
nion
at c
omm
ittee
(N
ote:
this
issu
e is
like
ly to
be
addr
esse
d by
the
ongo
ing
wor
k of
the
Mem
ber
Dev
elop
men
t Ste
erin
g G
roup
.)
OK
som
e m
ay n
eed
it –
but n
ot in
our
NH
ei
ther
whe
n pr
evio
usly
cha
ired
by L
ibD
ems
or
Con
serv
ativ
es
G14
5.
exis
ting
pow
ers
• se
min
ars
to h
ighl
ight
Ctte
es’ e
xist
ing
pow
ers
•
espe
cial
ly in
rela
tion
to h
ousi
ng, l
eisu
re a
nd re
crea
tion,
and
libr
arie
s is
sues
Agr
ee –
cer
tain
ly
hous
ing
– w
e ap
pare
ntly
hav
e no
bu
dget
– s
o no
po
wer
.
B.
Invo
lvem
ent i
n Po
licy
Dev
elop
men
t and
Rev
iew
6.
‘impl
icat
ions
’ co
mm
enta
ries
• to
acc
ompa
ny P
olic
y do
cum
ents
to s
how
spe
cific
impl
icat
ions
of t
he p
olic
y to
the
N’h
ood
• ap
prox
2-3
pag
es i.
e. b
rief /
sum
mar
isin
g
• by
N’h
ood
Mgr
in c
oope
ratio
n w
ith D
ept l
ink
offic
er
No
obje
ctio
n to
suc
h a
pape
r with
inpu
t fr
om N
H M
anag
er
but s
houl
d be
pr
epar
ed b
y D
irect
orat
e re
spon
sibl
e to
en
sure
con
tinui
ty
acro
ss B
orou
gh
7.
chan
ce to
Influ
ence
m
ajor
dev
elop
men
ts
• e.
g. e
xten
ded
scho
ols
• bu
ild in
tim
ely
cons
ider
atio
n to
allo
w d
etai
led
cons
ider
atio
n at
N’h
ood
leve
l
As
long
as
it is
re
alis
ed th
is w
ill
prol
ong
the
proc
ess
8.
calli
ng to
acc
ount
•
e.g.
of e
xecu
tive
mem
bers
and
sen
ior o
ffice
rs in
rela
tion
to d
ecis
ions
affe
ctin
g th
e N
eigh
bour
hood
•
e.g.
pro
blem
s w
ith s
ervi
ce d
eliv
ery
or im
plem
enta
tion
of p
olic
y (N
ote:
Nei
ghbo
urho
od C
omm
ittee
s ca
n al
read
y ca
ll-in
Exe
cutiv
e de
cisi
ons
that
impa
ct o
n th
e N
eigh
bour
hood
.)
This
is a
lread
y th
e si
tuat
ion
as I
unde
rsta
nd it
.
9.
prop
osin
g re
view
s •
to O
verv
iew
Com
mis
sion
for i
n-de
pth
cons
ider
atio
n N
eeds
to b
e pr
oper
st
ruct
ure
to th
is.
At
pres
ent m
embe
rs
are
bein
g as
ked
“any
body
got
any
id
eas
on th
is?”
Tha
t is
far t
oo c
asua
l and
un
prof
essi
onal
,
G15
C.
Com
mun
ity L
eade
rshi
p ro
le
10.
‘loca
l par
tner
ship
s’
(pilo
t 1)
- con
cept
• pi
lot s
chem
e ba
sis
•
one
area
in e
ach
N’h
ood
e.g.
Nor
bito
n fo
r KT
• w
ith p
artic
ular
pro
blem
s e.
g. re
lativ
e de
priv
atio
n
• fin
d jo
ined
up
solu
tions
with
par
tner
s
Agr
ee.
Such
as
the
Mal
den’
s an
d C
oom
be B
usin
ess
brea
kfas
t m
eetin
g.
11.
‘loca
l par
tner
ship
s’
- op
erat
ion
• co
mpo
sed
of th
e re
leva
nt lo
cal a
genc
ies
( will
var
y ac
cord
ing
to a
rea)
•
enco
urag
ing
publ
ic e
ngag
emen
t •
all s
ocia
l gro
ups
• ai
m to
dev
elop
a c
omm
unity
str
ateg
y fo
r tha
t are
a
Polic
e. H
elp
the
Age
d. Y
outh
Clu
bs.
Res
iden
ts
Ass
ocia
tions
12.
‘loca
l com
mun
ity
stra
tegy
’ (p
ilot 2
)
• pi
lot s
chem
e ba
sis
for a
noth
er (o
r cou
ld b
e th
e sa
me)
are
a in
the
N’h
ood
• w
hich
has
wel
l org
anis
ed s
ocia
l org
anis
atio
n al
read
y •
esta
blis
h w
orki
ng g
roup
s of
loca
l peo
ple
to id
entif
y pr
oble
ms
& is
sues
& p
ract
ical
so
lutio
ns
• as
bas
is fo
r a lo
cal c
omm
unity
str
ateg
y fo
r tha
t are
a
As
Abo
ve
13.
impl
emen
t loc
al
com
mun
ity s
trat
egie
s
• w
hen
read
y, e
stab
lish
loca
l par
tner
ship
mac
hine
ry to
impl
emen
t str
ateg
ies
Nee
d a
pape
r on
how
th
is w
ould
be
set u
p.
14.
exte
nsio
n of
pilo
ts
• gr
adua
l ext
ensi
on to
oth
er s
uita
ble
area
s •
aim
for c
ompr
ehen
sive
cov
erag
e by
loca
l com
mun
ity s
trat
egy
and
/ or l
ocal
par
tner
ship
st
rate
gy
• bo
ttom
-up
appr
oach
but
con
sist
ent w
ith B
orou
gh s
trat
egie
s
The
foru
m c
urre
ntly
us
ed is
the
‘info
rmal
’ ne
ighb
ourh
ood
Cha
irs F
orum
.
15.
Inco
rpor
ate
into
Lo
cal A
rea
Agr
eem
ent
• de
velo
p R
BK
Loc
al A
rea
Agr
eem
ent (
as a
sec
ond
phas
e) to
inco
rpor
ate
a fo
cus
on th
e 4
area
s of
rela
tive
depr
ivat
ion
iden
tifie
d by
NC
s
16.
refle
ct th
e pa
rtic
ular
an
d di
ffere
nt
• pi
lot s
chem
es a
nd e
xten
sion
s to
refle
ct th
e pa
rtic
ular
and
diff
eren
t circ
umst
ance
s of
th
e 4
N’h
oods
G16
D.
Supp
ort f
or e
nhan
ced
neig
hbou
rhoo
d w
orki
ng
17.
N’h
ood
Man
ager
s •
enha
nced
sta
tus
and
leve
l of r
emun
erat
ion
to re
flect
add
ition
al d
evel
opm
enta
l re
spon
sibi
litie
s fo
r exp
ansi
on o
f nei
ghbo
urho
od d
imen
sion
in R
BK
ope
ratio
ns
Wou
ld m
ean
recr
uitm
ent o
f new
pe
ople
to d
o th
e jo
b en
visa
ged
– th
e ad
ditio
nal
deve
lopm
enta
l rol
e -
is p
roba
bly
a se
nior
of
ficer
leve
l ran
k re
quire
d w
hich
ca
nnot
be
affo
rded
in
the
pres
ent
situ
atio
n –a
nyw
ay I
thin
k th
is s
houl
d be
do
ne b
y on
e pe
rson
in
eac
h D
irect
orat
e w
ho w
ould
be
resp
onsi
ble
to ll
NH
C
omm
ittee
s.
18
. Li
nk o
ffice
rs
• in
eac
h se
rvic
e ar
ea w
ith w
hich
Nei
ghbo
urho
od C
ttees
dea
l to
supp
ort N
’hoo
d C
ttee
with
info
and
adv
ice
Agr
ee
19.
Liai
son
Pane
l •
for e
xecu
tive
mem
bers
to m
eet f
orm
ally
with
(Co)
Cha
irs o
f N’h
ood
Ctte
es
• m
eetin
g 2-
3 tim
es p
er y
ear
The
purp
ose
of th
is
is n
ot c
lear
20.
Kin
gsto
n To
wn
‘str
ateg
ic’
issu
es
• if
repe
rcus
sion
s of
a K
ings
ton
Tow
n C
entr
e de
cisi
on e
xten
d si
gnifi
cant
ly in
to o
ther
N
’hoo
ds
• m
onito
ring
offic
er to
adj
udic
ate
on w
hich
are
‘str
ateg
ic’
• to
be
refe
rred
to E
xecu
tive
for d
ecis
ion
• w
ith K
TNC
vie
w c
lear
ly s
how
n •
such
dec
isio
ns to
be
subj
ect t
o us
ual c
all-i
n pr
oces
s
Prim
arily
KTN
yes
, but
ot
hers
als
o.
G17
ANNEX 2
CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW
IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS FROM PROFESSOR STEVE LEACH’S REPORT
PROPOSALS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL REVIEW WORKING GROUP
Rec. No RECOMMENDATION PROPOSAL
1 The Decision-Making role of Neighbourhood Committees
1. The meetings of neighbourhood committees (NCs) should be restructured in one of the following ways.
a. Establishment of a Highways, Transport and local Environment sub-committee of each NC, meeting with the same frequency, and on the same basis as the Planning sub-committees
b. NCs to meet on a monthly basis with alternate business meetings and policy and development meetings (urgent decision items only permitted at the latter)
2. An internal review of the content of NC agendas should be undertaken to assess the extent to which business could be conducted more efficiently. Particular attention should be paid to:
a. Reducing the number of occasions on which a particular parking scheme is considered at NC meetings
b. Making more use of chair’s action (or small working groups) to provide oversight of consultation procedures, and to report back on their outcome
c. Exploring the scope for extending delegation to officers of decisions taken at NCs which have little or no political significance (e.g. street naming)
d. Arranging site inspections (where necessary) prior to their consideration at NC meeting.
For individual Neighbourhoods to determine, but note potential resource implications of additional meetings. Again for individual Neighbourhoods to address, but any formal delegation of powers to individual Members as per b. would require a change to the Constitution.
G18
Rec. No RECOMMENDATION PROPOSAL
3. A guidelines document should be drawn-up and disseminated regarding the conduct of NC business meetings, including the following elements:
a ‘red alert’ process for identifying
those decisions where public pressure is likely to be experienced
b Full discussion prior to the NC meeting, between the committee administrator, neighbourhood manager and professional officer concerned, to ensure consistency of approach
c. Capacity to defer decisions where evidence of the views of other local interests is required before an informed decision can be reached
d Continuation of ‘follow-up’ meetings after each NC meeting, to ensure that action required is understood and facilitated
4. A ‘job description’ to be developed for Chairs and Co-Chairs of NC’s together with an in-house training and development programme which familiarises them with the guidelines and equips them to deal with the public pressures experienced at NC meetings.
5. Seminars should be arranged for all NC members, to explore the opportunities for making more use of decision-making powers which already exist, especially in relation to housing, leisure and recreation, and libraries issues.
Guidelines document to be produced for use by Neighbourhood Committees, but not on the basis that it is a prescriptive Code of Practice. To be addressed in the Members’ Training and Development Needs audit that will shortly be underway. To be addressed in the Members’ Training and Development Needs audit that will shortly be underway.
Involvement of Neighbourhood Committees in Policy Development and Review
6. Policy documents submitted to NCs should be accompanied by a 2-3 page commentary, drawing out the implications of the policy for the particular neighbourhood concerned. This commentary should be prepared by the neighbourhood manager, with the co-operation of the ‘link officer’ in the relevant department.
Agreed, but commentary to be produced by appropriate `Directorate Officer’, with input from each Neighbourhood Services Manager in relation to the potential impact on the Neighbourhood. Alternative forms of presentation of such reports also to be considered.
G19
Rec. No RECOMMENDATION PROPOSAL
7. Opportunities should be provided for NCs to influence the content of major development projects such as extended schools, within their areas, on a time scale which is conducive to detailed consideration.
8. NCs should continue to have the right to ‘call to account’ executive members or senior officers in relation to decisions which have affected their area, or implementation problems with existing policies or service delivery.
9. NCs should have the opportunity to put forward proposals to the Overview Commission for in-depth reviews on topics which they feel merit this.
Agreed. Agreed - Neighbourhoods can already call-in Executive decisions which impact on their area. Agreed – it is already open to Neighbourhoods to put forward such requests.
Community Leadership and Neighbourhood Committees
10. Local partnerships should be established (or
strengthened) on a ‘pilot scheme’ basis within areas or relative deprivation – or which are in some way problematical – in each of the four neighbourhoods. These partnerships should be used to explore the opportunities for joined-up solutions to the problems of the areas. Norbiton in the Kingston Town area should be one of the pilot schemes. The other NCs should consider options within their areas.
11. These local partnerships should be
composed of the relevant local agencies (this will vary from area to area) and should operate in a way which encourages the public engagement of all social groupings within the areas. At a later stage, when the social infrastructure has become more established, the opportunity should be taken to develop a neighbourhood community strategy for the area.
The Group to give further consideration to Recommendations 10-16 with the benefit of a fuller report and in the context of the `place-shaping’ role for local authorities envisaged in the current Local Government White Paper and the Changing Kingston – Choosing our Future Medium Term Plan.
G20
Rec. No RECOMMENDATION PROPOSAL
12. In each of the four neighbourhoods, a local
area should be identified where there is already a relatively high level of social organisation and social capital. Within these areas, working groups of local residents should be established to identify problems and issues within their area, and propose practical solutions, expressed in the form of a local community strategy.
13. When this stage has been reached, local
partnership machinery should be established to enable these strategies to be implemented.
14. Over time, the experience of these two types
of pilot scheme should be extended to other suitable areas within each neighbourhood, so that eventually there is a comprehensive coverage of both neighbourhood partnership and neighbourhood community strategies, developed from the bottom up (but also influenced by borough-wide strategies).
15. The second phase of the RBK Local Area
Agreement should incorporate a dimension which focuses on the four areas of relative deprivation identifies as part of the process set out in Recommendation 10
16. In all these pilot schemes, and their
subsequent extensions, neighbourhood committees should play the lead role, ensuring that the schemes reflect the particular (different) circumstances of the four neighbourhoods.
Support for Enhanced Neighbourhood Working
17. The status and level of remuneration of neighbourhood managers should be enhanced in a way which reflects the additional development responsibilities associated with the proposed expansion of the neighbourhood dimension in the operations of RBK.
The Group to give further consideration to this issue and the Link Officer proposal in Recommendation 18, in the context of the Changing Kingston – Choosing our Future Medium Term Plan.
G21
Rec. No RECOMMENDATION PROPOSAL
18. ‘Link Officers’ (approx 10-12) should be nominated in each of the relevant service areas with which NCs deal. Their role should be to provide information and advice on matters which NCs wish to decide, discuss or scrutinise. Link officers should be given a time allocation (up to 10%) and their performance in this role should be part of their annual appraisal.
19. The liaison panel of Executive members and chairs and co-chairs of NCs should be established and meet 2-3 times per year. Its key role should be to explore issues if consistency and to ensure that the strategic/operational division of responsibilities is operating effectively.
20. Issues which manifest themselves within Kingston Town Centre, but which have repercussions which extend significantly beyond the Kingston Town Centre neighbourhood boundaries should be deemed strategic (Monitoring Officer to make the judgement, if it is disputed) and referred to the Executive for decision, although the Kingston Town NC should have ample opportunity to make its own view clear. These decisions should be subject to the usual call-in processes.
As above. Agreed. Agreed, though acknowledging that relatively few issues would fall into this category. Amendment to Constitution required.
APPENDIX H Executive, 20 March 2007
ADMISSION ARRANGEMENTS FOR COMMUNITY SCHOOLS FOR SEPTEMBER 2008 Report of the Strategic Director of Learning and Children’s Services Executive Member for Children & Young People’s Services Purpose The admission arrangements for Community primary and secondary schools are the subject of annual consultation with all local schools and neighbouring Local Authorities (LAs). The arrangements should then be determined by the LA for admissions two Septembers ahead by 15 April each year. Consultation has taken place with all Kingston primary and secondary schools, Diocesan Boards and neighbouring authorities on admission arrangements for Community schools for September 2008. The Admissions Forum considered the arrangements proposed prior to consultation at a meeting on 16 October 2006. The Forum considered the responses to the consultation at its meeting on 5 February 2007 and approved each of the eight proposals that formed the subject of the consultation. The purpose of this report is to: bring to members’ attention the outcome of the consultation process; seek approval for the changes proposed; seek the adoption of the proposed admission arrangements for primary schools and secondary schools and, obtain the Executive’s approval for the admissions numbers proposed. Action Proposed by Executive Member for Children & Young People’s Services The Executive is requested to approve that for admissions to schools in September 2008: 1. no changes are made to the over subscription criteria for non-selective
Community schools; 2. no changes are made to the admissions criteria for the selective community
school (Tiffin Girls’ School); 3. no changes are made to admissions numbers for Community secondary and
primary schools for September 2008. 4. no significant changes are made to the co-ordinated admissions scheme for all
secondary schools for September 2008; 5. no significant changes are made to the co-ordinated admissions scheme for all
primary schools for September 2008; 6. no changes are made to the waiting list arrangements for community schools;
H2
7. the clarification of the admissions process for applications from twins, triplets, other multiple births and siblings born in the same academic year;
8. the clarification is given of admission arrangements for sixth form entry into
community secondary schools. Reason for proposed action To fulfil the LA’s statutory duty to determine admission arrangements for Community schools each year following consultation with schools and others. This includes the statutory duty for all LAs to adopt co-ordinated admission arrangements for secondary and primary school admissions for all Community, Foundation and Voluntary Aided schools. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1. School Admission regulations stipulate that the admission arrangements for
Community schools, for which the Local Authority is the admission authority, have to be reviewed each year. Decisions about the arrangements to apply for admissions two Septembers ahead have to be taken by 15 April each year.
2. This annual review must include consultation with all Community, Voluntary
Aided (VA) and Foundation schools in Kingston and with neighbouring LAs. The closing date for this consultation was 15 January 2007. A consultation paper was sent to all schools in the borough, all neighbouring LAs and the Diocesan Boards. Responses to the consultation were received from Richmond and Wandsworth Councils. A summary of the responses is attached at Annex 1.
3. At its meeting on 16 October 2006 the Admissions Forum considered a report
from the Strategic Director of Learning and Children’s Services about his intention to consult on proposed changes to school admission arrangements for September 2008.
4. Kingston’s Admission Forum considered the issues raised in the consultation
paper at its meeting on 16 October 2006. All admission authorities have a duty to regard any advice from their local Admissions Forum.
5. At its meeting on 5 February 2007, the Admissions Forum considered the
responses to the consultation paper and approved each of the eight proposals that formed the subject of the consultation. Both of the responses received to the consultation paper agreed with all the proposals but suggested greater clarification in the wording on waiting list arrangements in the statutory consultation and within the secondary and primary schemes. The wording was revised to be clearer and these revisions were approved by the Admissions Forum on 5 February. The revised documents are attached at Annex 2 and the revised sections all relate to waiting list arrangements. These are paragraphs 15 and 16 of the statutory consultation, paragraph 45 of the secondary scheme and paragraph 32 of the primary scheme.
H3
OVERSUBSCRIPTION CRITERIA FOR COMMUNITY SCHOOLS Oversubscription criteria for Non-Selective Community Secondary Schools 6. No responses were received that opposed this proposal. 7. The proposed over-subscription criteria for September 2008 for non-selective
community secondary schools are as follows:
Where more applications are received than there are places availableplaces will be offered in the following order of priority:
i) places will be offered firstly to Looked After Children i.e. children who are
looked after by a public authority and are in public care. Applications made under this criterion must be accompanied by details of circumstance and professionally supported evidence (e.g. from a social worker);
ii) places will be offered next to children who have a brother or sister, including
an adopted, foster, half- or step- brother or sister, living at the same address and attending the same school at the time of admission;
iii) places will then be offered in cases of exceptional family, social or medical
need (which must be described on the application form and verified by professionally supported evidence) which makes the school concerned the most suitable one for the individual child;
iv) the remaining places will be offered to children who live nearest to the
school, as measured by the shortest approved walking route. All distances will be measured using the Council’s computerised Geographical Information System.
Oversubscription Criteria for Community Primary Schools 8. No responses were received that opposed this proposal. 9. The proposed oversubscription criteria for community primary schools are as
follows:
Where more applications are received than there are places available, places will be offered in the following order of priority:
i) places will be offered firstly to Looked After Children i.e. children who are
looked after by a public authority and are in public care. Applications made under this criterion must be accompanied by details of circumstance and professionally supported evidence (e.g. from a social worker);
ii) places will be offered next to children who have a brother or sister, including
an adopted, foster, half- or step- brother or sister, living at the same address and attending the same school (or the paired infant school) at the time of admission;
H4
iii) places will then be offered in cases of exceptional family, social or medical need (which must be described on the application form and verified by professionally supported evidence) which makes the school concerned the most suitable one for the individual child;
iv) the remaining places will be offered to children who live nearest to the
school, as measured by the shortest approved walking route. All distances will be measured using the Council’s computerised Geographical Information System. For Ellingham Primary School (in Chessington) only, a child living in the Malden Rushett area will have priority over children who live nearer to the school but outside that area.
Oversubscription Criteria for Community Junior Schools 10. No responses were received that opposed this proposal.
11. The proposed oversubscription criteria for community junior schools are as follows:
Where more applications are received than there are places available, places will be offered in the following order of priority: i) places will be offered firstly to Looked After Children i.e. children who are
looked after by a public authority and are in public care. Applications made under this criterion must be accompanied by details of circumstance and professionally supported evidence (e.g. from a social worker);
ii) places will be offered secondly to children attending the “paired” community
infant school;
iii) places will be offered next to children who have a brother or sister, including an adopted, foster, half- or step- brother or sister, living at the same address and attending the same school (or the paired infant school) at the time of admission;
iv) places will then be offered in cases of exceptional family, social or medical
need (which must be described on the application form and verified by professionally supported evidence) which makes the school concerned the most suitable one for the individual child;
v) the remaining places will be offered to children who live nearest to the
school, as measured by the shortest approved walking route. All distances will be measured using the Council’s computerised Geographical Information System.
Oversubscription criteria for Community Nursery Schools
12. No responses were received that opposed this proposal. 13. The proposed oversubscription criteria for community nursery schools are:
H5
Where more applications are received than there are places available, places will be offered in the following order of priority:
i) places will be offered firstly to Looked After Children i.e. children who are looked after by a public authority and are in public care. Applications made under this criterion must be accompanied by details of circumstance and professionally supported evidence (e.g. from a social worker);
ii) places will be offered next to children who have a brother or sister, including
an adopted, foster, half- or step- brother or sister, living at the same address and attending the same school (or the paired infant or junior school) at the time of admission;
iii) places will then be offered in cases of exceptional family, social or medical
need (which must be described on the application form and verified by professionally supported evidence) which makes the school concerned the most suitable one for the individual child;
iv) the remaining places will be offered to children who live nearest to the
school, as measured by the shortest approved walking route. All distances will be measured using the Council’s computerised Geographical Information System. For Ellingham Primary School (in Chessington) only, a child living in the Malden Rushett area will have priority over children who live nearer to the school but outside that area.
Oversubscription criteria for the Selective Community Secondary School 14. No responses were received that opposed this proposal. 15. The Tiffin Girls’ School (selective): The Local Authority is proposing no change
to the criteria for Year 7 entry to the Tiffin Girls’ School. The proposed Year 7 entry criteria for September 2008 for the Tiffin Girls’ School are as follows:
i) places at The Tiffin Girls’ School will be offered to girls on the basis of
selection by ability as shown by their performance in the two selection tests of Non-Verbal Reasoning and Verbal Reasoning, standardised for age (within the eligible year group);
ii) in the event of a tied score to fill 120 places, a place or places will be
offered to the child or children who live nearest to the school, as measured by the shortest approved walking route. All distances will be measured using the Council’s computerised Geographical Information System.
SECONDARY CO-ORDINATED ADMISSIONS SCHEME FOR SEPTEMBER 2008 16. The consultation document proposed that the only small changes be made to
the current co-ordinated admissions scheme for secondary schools is in the dates of the commonly agreed timetable. The proposed secondary co-ordinated admissions scheme is attached at Annex 2.
17. No responses were received which opposed this proposal.
H6
18. However, as a result of the two responses received suggesting greater clarity of wording for waiting list arrangements, paragraph 45 of the scheme has been revised and is attached at Annex 2.
PRIMARY CO-ORDINATED ADMISSIONS SCHEME FOR SEPTEMBER 2008 19. The consultation document proposed that no significant changes be made to
the current co-ordinated admissions scheme for primary schools. 20. No responses were received that opposed this proposal. 21. However, as a result of the two responses received suggesting greater clarity of
wording for waiting list arrangements, paragraph 32 of the scheme has been revised and is attached at Annex 2.
ADMISSIONS NUMBERS FOR SEPTEMBER 2008 Secondary School Admission Numbers for September 2008 22. No changes are proposed to the admission number of any Community
secondary schools for September 2008. These numbers are as follows:
Chessington Community College 150 Coombe Girls’ School 210 Southborough School 150 The Tiffin Girls’ School 120 Tolworth Girls’ School 210
Primary School Admission Numbers for September 2008 23. No changes are proposed to the admission number of any Community primary
school for September 2008. These numbers are as follows:
School Proposed Admission No
Alexandra Infant 60 Buckland Infant 90 Burlington Infant 90 Burlington Junior 90 Coombe Hill Infant 90 Coombe Hill Junior 90 Ellingham Primary 30 Fern Hill Primary 60 Grand Avenue Primary 60 Green Lane Primary 60 King Athelstan Primary 60 Knollmead Primary 30 Latchmere Infant 90 Latchmere Junior 90 Lovelace Primary 60
H7
Malden Manor Primary 60 Maple Infant 60 Moor Lane Junior 90 Robin Hood Primary 30 The Mount Primary 60 Tolworth Infant 90 Tolworth Junior 90
25. No responses were received that opposed this proposal. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS 26. There are no environmental implications arising directly from the proposals
under consideration in this report. BACKGROUND PAPERS: Held by Hatija Bhatia 020 8547 5284 or hatija.bhatia@rbk.kingston.gov.uk (author of report) 1. School Admission Regulations 2003 and DfES Code of Practice on
Admissions. 2. Reports to Kingston Admission Forum on 16 October 2006 and 5 February
2007. 3. School Admission Arrangements for Community Schools for the School Year
2008/09 Consultation Paper 4. Responses to consultation carried out between November 2006 and January
2007.
H8
ANNEX 1
SUMMARY OF RESPONSES RECEIVED TO THE CONSULTATION The Local Authority (LA) consulted with admission authorities within Kingston and neighbouring Councils and the Diocesan Boards. Consultation took place between 27 November 2006 and 15 January 2007 on the following proposals:
A. Admission criteria for non-selective community schools in Kingston
B. Admission criteria for the selective community school in Kingston
C. Admission numbers for community schools
D. Scheme for co-ordinated secondary admissions
E. Scheme for co-ordinated primary admissions
F. Waiting List arrangements for community schools
G. Admissions of twins, triplets, other multiple births or siblings born in the same academic year
H. Sixth form admissions into community secondary schools
Responses to the consultation There were two responses received to the consultation and both of the responses agreed with all proposals but suggested greater clarification to the wording on waiting list arrangements. Responses to the consultation are shown below: Response received Comments Richmond Council Agreed with all proposed arrangements
and suggested greater clarification in the wording on waiting list arrangements in the statutory consultation and within the secondary and primary schemes.
Wandsworth Council suggested greater clarification in the wording on waiting list arrangements in in the statutory consultation and within the secondary and primary schemes.
As a result of these responses, paragraphs 15 and 16 of the statutory consultation, paragraph 45 of the secondary scheme and paragraph 32 of the primary scheme have been revised and are contained the revised document attached at Annex 2.
H9
ANNEX 2
Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Learning and Children’s Services
SCHOOL ADMISSION ARRANGEMENTS FOR COMMUNITY SCHOOLS
FOR THE SCHOOL YEAR 2008/09
Consultation by the Strategic Director of Learning and Children’s Services
Introduction This consultation paper covers the following areas for school admission arrangements for September 2008.
A. Admission criteria for non-selective community schools in Kingston
B. Admission criteria for the selective community school in Kingston
C. Admission numbers for community schools
D. Scheme for co-ordinated secondary admissions
E. Scheme for co-ordinated primary admissions
F. Waiting list arrangements for community schools
G. Admissions of twins, triplets, other multiple births or siblings born in the same academic year
H. Sixth form admissions into community secondary schools
A. Admissions Criteria for non-selective community schools
1. The Local Authority intends to continue with the existing criteria for non-
selective community schools except for two minor changes to the wording of the sibling criterion and to the criterion relating to family, social and medical need.
2. Under the current sibling criterion for non-selective community schools, siblings
are defined as “brother or sister, including adopted, step- or foster- brother or sister, living at the same address and attending the same school “.
3. Therefore the Local Authority is proposing to expand the definition to include
half-brothers or sisters so that the criterion is better defined. 4. The current criterion relating to family, social and medical need states that it is
applied to cases of “particular family, social or medical need (which must be described on the application form and then be verified) which makes the school concerned the most suitable one for the individual child ”.
H10
5. It is proposed to use the word “exceptional” instead of “particular” as this describes better the special circumstances which are considered under this criterion.
Community Secondary Schools 6. The proposed over-subscription criteria for September 2008 for non-selective
community secondary schools are as follows: Where more applications are received than there are places available, places will be offered in the following order of priority:
i) places will be offered firstly to Looked After Children i.e. children who are looked after by a public authority and are in public care. Applications made under this criterion must be accompanied by details of circumstance and professionally supported evidence (e.g. from a social worker);
ii) places will be offered next to children who have a brother or sister,
including an adopted, foster, half- or step- brother or sister, living at the same address and attending the same school at the time of admission;
iii) places will then be offered in cases of exceptional family, social or
medical need (which must be described on the application form and verified by professionally supported evidence) which makes the school concerned the most suitable one for the individual child;
iv) the remaining places will be offered to children who live nearest to
the school, as measured by the shortest approved walking route. All distances will be measured using the Council’s computerised Geographical Information System.
Community Primary Schools
7. The proposed oversubscription criteria for community primary schools are as follows:
Where more applications are received than there are places available, places will be offered in the following order of priority:
i) places will be offered firstly to Looked After Children i.e. children who are looked after by a public authority and are in public care. Applications made under this criterion must be accompanied by details of circumstance and professionally supported evidence (e.g. from a social worker);
ii) places will be offered next to children who have a brother or sister,
including an adopted, foster, half- or step- brother or sister, living at the same address and attending the same school (or the paired infant school) at the time of admission;
H11
iii) places will then be offered in cases of exceptional family, social or
medical need (which must be described on the application form and verified by professionally supported evidence) which makes the school concerned the most suitable one for the individual child;
iv) the remaining places will be offered to children who live nearest to
the school, as measured by the shortest approved walking route. All distances will be measured using the Council’s computerised Geographical Information System. For Ellingham Primary School (in Chessington) only, a child living in the Malden Rushett area will have priority over children who live nearer to the school but outside that area.
Community Junior Schools
8. The proposed oversubscription criteria for community junior schools are as follows:
Where more applications are received than there are places available, places will be offered in the following order of priority:
i) places will be offered firstly to Looked After Children i.e. children who
are looked after by a public authority and are in public care. Applications made under this criterion must be accompanied by details of circumstance and professionally supported evidence (e.g. from a social worker);
ii) places will be offered secondly to children attending the “paired”
community infant school;
iii) places will be offered next to children who have a brother or sister, including an adopted, foster, half- or step- brother or sister, living at the same address and attending the same school (or the paired infant school) at the time of admission;
iv) places will then be offered in cases of exceptional family, social or
medical need (which must be described on the application form and verified by professionally supported evidence) which makes the school concerned the most suitable one for the individual child;
v) the remaining places will be offered to children who live nearest to
the school, as measured by the shortest approved walking route. All distances will be measured using the Council’s computerised Geographical Information System.
Community Nursery Schools
9. The proposed oversubscription criteria for community nursery schools are:
H12
Where more applications are received than there are places available, places will be offered in the following order of priority:
i) places will be offered firstly to Looked After Children i.e. children who are looked after by a public authority and are in public care. Applications made under this criterion must be accompanied by details of circumstance and professionally supported evidence (e.g. from a social worker);
ii) places will be offered next to children who have a brother or sister,
including an adopted, foster, half- or step- brother or sister, living at the same address and attending the same school (or the paired infant or junior school) at the time of admission;
iii) places will then be offered in cases of exceptional family, social or
medical need (which must be described on the application form and verified by professionally supported evidence) which makes the school concerned the most suitable one for the individual child;
iv) the remaining places will be offered to children who live nearest to
the school, as measured by the shortest approved walking route. All distances will be measured using the Council’s computerised Geographical Information System. For Ellingham Primary School (in Chessington) only, a child living in the Malden Rushett area will have priority over children who live nearer to the school but outside that area.
B. Admission Criteria for the Selective Community Secondary School 10. The Tiffin Girls’ School (selective): The Local Authority is proposing no change
to the criteria for Year 7 entry to the Tiffin Girls’ School. 11. The proposed Year 7 entry criteria for September 2008 for the Tiffin Girls’
School are as follows:
i) places at The Tiffin Girls’ School will be offered to girls on the basis of selection by ability as shown by their performance in the two selection tests of Non-Verbal Reasoning and Verbal Reasoning, standardised for age (within the eligible year group);
ii) in the event of a tied score to fill 120 places, a place or places will be
offered to the child or children who live nearest to the school, as measured by the shortest approved walking route. All distances will be measured using the Council’s computerised Geographical Information System.
C. Admission Numbers 12. The LA is proposing no changes to the admission number of any community
secondary or primary schools for 2008–09. These numbers are as follows:
H13
Secondary School Admission Numbers for 2008/09
School Proposed Admission No Chessington Community College 150 Coombe Girls’ School 210 Southborough High School 150 The Tiffin Girls’ School 120 Tolworth Girls’ School 210
Primary school admission numbers for 2008/09
School Proposed Admission No
Alexandra Infant 60 Buckland Infant 90 Burlington Infant 90 Burlington Junior 90 Coombe Hill Infant 90 Coombe Hill Junior 90 Ellingham Primary 30 Fern Hill Primary 60 Grand Avenue Primary 60 Green Lane Primary 60 King Athelstan Primary 60 Knollmead Primary 30 Latchmere Infant 90 Latchmere Junior 90 Lovelace Primary 60 Malden Manor Primary 60 Maple Infant 60 Moor Lane Junior 90 Robin Hood Primary 30 The Mount Primary 60 Tolworth Infant 90 Tolworth Junior 90
D. Co-ordinated Secondary School Admission Arrangements 13. The co-ordinated scheme for secondary admissions for September 2008 is
attached as Appendix 1 and does not differ significantly from the LA’s scheme for 2007 admissions except in the dates of the commonly agreed timetable.
H14
E. Co-ordinated Primary School Admission Arrangements 14. The co-ordinated scheme for primary admissions for September 2008 is
attached as Appendix 2 and does not differ from the LA’s scheme for 2007 admissions except in the dates of the commonly agreed timetable.
F. Waiting list arrangements for community schools Community Secondary, Primary, Junior and Infant Schools 15. Following co-ordination, waiting lists will automatically consist of the names of
all unsuccessful applicants who have not had a higher preference offer together with any applicants who apply as a result of moving into the area and will be held in criteria order.
16. Names of children who received a higher initial offer and/or those who made
initial applications but did not name the school as a preference can be added to the waiting list. However, these names will be added to the list after the names of children described in (15) above.
Non-Selective Community Secondary, Primary, Junior and Infant Schools 17. The waiting lists for all community non-selective secondary, primary, junior and
infant schools will be held as described in paragraphs 15 and 16 until 31 August 2008.
18. From 1 September 2008, all names will be held on a single waiting list in criteria
order only. Selective Community Secondary School (The Tiffin Girls’ School) 19. For The Tiffin Girls’ School, the waiting list will be held in rank score order and
will automatically consist of names of children who have not had a higher preference offer.
20. The names of children who have sat the test and who have been offered a
higher preference school will be removed from the waiting list. Parents of these children can request that their child’s name is added to the waiting list, but their names will be added after all those who have not been offered a higher preference school.
21. The waiting list will be maintained as described in paragraphs 19 and 20
between 1 March 2008 and 31 December 2008. During this time, if the admission number for Year 7 (September 2008) falls below 120, a further offer will be made to the next child on the list.
22. If there is more than one child who achieves the score at which the next offer is
made, the place will be offered to the child who lives nearest to the school, as measured by the shortest approved walking route. All distances will be measured using the Council’s computerised Geographical Information System.
H15
23. The waiting list will be maintained from 1 March 2008 until 31 December 2008. After 31 December 2008, there will no longer be a waiting list. Candidates who have taken the test, but have not been offered a place by that date, will no longer be considered for a place in Years 7 to 11 at any future time.
Waiting List arrangements for Nursery Classes 24. All community schools with nursery classes and Surbiton Children’s Centre
Nursery, will maintain waiting lists using the published admissions criteria. Applications received after the closing date will be considered after all applications received by the closing date. After 23 June 2008, schools will draw up a new single waiting list using admissions criteria only.
G. Admission of twins, triplets, other multiple births and siblings born in the
same academic year 25. Where a parent applies for entry into the same year group at a community
school for more than one child and it is not possible to offer places to all the siblings(brothers and sisters), the children’s names will be added to the waiting list in accordance with the published admissions criteria, in the same way as for other children.
26. Where there is one school place available and there is more than one sibling
who is eligible for the place under the published admissions criteria, the parent will be asked to decide whether or not he/she wishes to accept the available place.
H. Sixth Form Admissions into community secondary schools for September
2008 27. Year 11 pupils currently studying at a Kingston secondary school and pupils in
the appropriate age range currently studying elsewhere may apply to join the sixth form at each of Kingston’s four non-selective and one selective community secondary schools.
28. The entry criteria for external applicants are the same as for those already in
the school except that applications from internal candidates will be considered first. More places may be available to external candidates, depending on the uptake of places by internal applicants. Admission into the sixth form (Year 12 and 13) at each school is dealt with by the school concerned.
Community Selective School (The Tiffin Girls School) 29. The minimum qualification for entry into the sixth form is eight GCSE “passes”
(grades A* - C), or AS grades A - E, including English, Mathematics and a science. Approximately 20 external candidates will be admitted to the sixth form.
30. Tiffin Girls’ School offers a range of courses and the availability of places for
specific courses will differ subject-by-subject depending on the uptake for each subject. The priority in each case is to match the course provided to the prior
H16
attainment and future aspirations of individual students, within available resources and staffing.
Community non-selective secondary schools (Chessington Community College, Coombe Girls School, Southborough High School and Tolworth Girls’ School) 31. These schools offer a range of courses and study pathways leading to different
levels of qualifications. The availability of places for specific courses will differ subject-by-subject depending on the uptake for each subject. The priority in each case is to match the course provided to the prior attainment and future aspirations of individual students, within available resources and staffing.
32. Admissions in Year 12 will only be considered if the student’s level of attainment
is suitable for the proposed course of study.
H17
APPENDIX 1 (to Annex 2)
THE ROYAL BOROUGH OF KINGSTON UPON THAMES LEARNING AND CHILDREN’S SERVICES
SCHEME FOR CO-ORDINATED SECONDARY SCHOOL ADMISSIONS
IN SEPTEMBER 2008
The Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Local Authority (LA) will be administering admissions to secondary schools in accordance with the Pan London Co-ordinated Admissions scheme. This scheme has been adopted by all London boroughs and adjacent LAs including Surrey County Council, that have agreed to use a common scheme that incorporates a common timetable and application forms which have common elements. All London LAs allow parents to nominate up to six schools in preference order. It is hoped that the commonality of the schemes adopted by all participating authorities will help simplify the application procedure and processing, and help to achieve some equity of treatment for applicants to secondary schools across the London Region. Glossary of terms in the scheme “the Academic Year” the year in which the academic year commences “the Application Year” the academic year in which the parent makes an
application i.e. in relation to the academic year of entry, the year preceding it.
“the Board” the Pan London Admissions Executive Board, which is responsible for the Scheme
“the Common Application Form”
this is the form that each LA must have under the Regulations for parents to use to make their applications, set out in rank order
“the Equal Preference System”
the model whereby all preferences listed by parents on the Common Application Form are considered under the over-subscription criteria for each school without reference to parental rankings. Where a pupil is offered a place at more than one school within an LA, the rankings are used to determine the single offer by selecting the one ranked highest of the places offered
“the Highly Recommended Elements”
the elements of the Template Qualifying Scheme that are not mandatory but to which subscription is strongly recommended in order to maximise co-ordination and thereby simplify the application process as far as possible
“the Home LA” the LA in which the applicant/parent is resident “the Local Admission System (LAS)”
the IT module for administering admissions in each LA and for determining the highest offer both within and between participating LAs
“the Maintaining LA” the LA which maintains a school to which an applicant has applied, i.e. the borough or county in which the school is situated (as a general rule)
“the Mandatory those elements of the Template LA Scheme to
H18
Elements” which authorities must subscribe in order to be considered as ‘Participating Authorities’ and to benefit from the Pan-London Register and related funding
“the Notification Letter” the agreed form of letter sent to applicants on the Prescribed Day which communicates decisions granting or refusing admission to a secondary school, which is attached as Schedule 2
“the Prescribed Day” 1st March in the year following the relevant determination year except that, in any year which that day is not a working day, the prescribed day shall be the next working day.
“the Pan-London Register (PLR)”
the database which will transmit application and offer data between each LA’s local admission system
“the Pan-London Timetable”
the framework for processing of application data
“the Participating LA” any LA that has indicated in the Memorandum of Agreement that they are willing to incorporate, at a minimum, the mandatory elements of the Template LA Scheme presented here
“the Qualifying Scheme” the scheme which each LA is required to formulate pursuant to section 89B(1)(a) of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 and the Regulations for co-ordinating arrangements for the admission of pupils to secondary schools
Applications 1. Applications from residents of this LA will be made on this authority’s Common
Application Form (CAF) which will be available in paper form and on-line. This will include all the fields and information specified in Schedule 1 (attached) to this Template LA Scheme. These will be supplemented by any additional fields and information deemed necessary by this LA.
2. This LA will advise home LAs of their resident pupils on the roll of this LA’s
maintained primary schools and whose parents are eligible to make application in the forthcoming application year.
3. This LA will take reasonable steps to ensure that every parent who has a child
in the last year of primary education within a maintained school, and is a resident in the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames, receives a copy of the Royal Borough of Kingston’s “Which Secondary School” booklet, a CAF and supplementary information forms for RB Kingston schools, including details of how to apply online. The booklet and supplementary information forms will also be available to parents who are non-residents of this LA and will include information on how they can access their Home LA’s CAF.
4. Applicants will be able to express a preference for up to six maintained
secondary schools within and/or outside the Home LA (including Academies
H19
and any City Technical College that has agreed to participate in their LA’s Qualifying Scheme).
5. The admission authorities within this LA will not use supplementary information
forms except where the information is required to apply the published over-subscription criteria and the information available through the CAF is not sufficient for consideration of the application against a school’s published admissions criteria. This will apply to the two Catholic schools, Richard Challoner and The Holy Cross School. This will also apply to the two selective schools, Tiffin School and Tiffin Girls School, which require a photograph as supplementary verification for their selection test. The LA will seek to ensure admission authorities within its area only collect information that is required by the published over-subscription criteria, in accordance with the Admissions Code of Practice (Sept 2006).
6. Where supplementary information forms are used, these will be made available
with RBK’s “Which Secondary School“ booklet. Parents will be advised in the booklet which schools require these forms to be completed and to return the supplementary information forms direct to the school by the closing date. The supplementary information forms must also advise parents that they must also complete their Home LA’s CAF, in accordance with the Admissions Code of Practice (Sept 2006).
7. The order of preference given on the CAF will not be revealed except where a
parent resident in this LA expresses a preference for schools in the area of another LA, the order of preference for that LA’s schools will be given to that LA so that it can determine the highest ranked preference in cases where a child is eligible for a place at more than one school in that LA’s area.
8. Where a school receives a supplementary information form it will not be
regarded as a valid application unless the parent has completed their Home LA’s CAF and the school is nominated on it.
9. Where a CAF has been completed, but not a supplementary information form,
the preference is still valid and will be considered. However parents will be advised in the “Which Secondary School” booklet that not submitting a completed supplementary information form to schools which require supplementary information to apply their admissions criteria, may reduce their child’s chance of being offered a place.
10. This LA will share the details of each application with own admission authority
schools within RB Kingston to enable schools to apply their admissions criteria. 11. Schools requiring a supplementary information form will check that each
applicant has completed a supplementary information form and wherever possible, contact applicants to follow up any supplementary information forms that have not been received.
12. Schools which receive CAFs in error must inform the LA and send the forms to
the LA as soon as possible. If the LA receives supplementary information forms in error, it must send them to the schools as soon as possible.
H20
Processing 13. Applicants resident within this LA must return the CAF, which will be available
and able to be submitted on-line, to this LA by 19 October in the Application Year 2007.
14. Supplementary information forms, where they apply, must be returned to the
school by the date specified on the supplementary information form. 15. Application data relating to applications to schools in other participating LAs will
be up-loaded to the PLR by 12 November in the Application Year 2007. Supplementary information provided with the CAF will be sent to the maintaining LAs by the same date.
16. In consultation with the school admission authorities within this LA’s area and
within the framework of the Pan-London timetable, the draft timetable attached has been drawn up for the processing of application data and the application of admissions criteria. This may be subject to be alteration prior to the implementation of this scheme to reflect any required change under Pan London arrangements.
17. Between 13th November and 25th November 2007, this LA will check the
application data received via the PLR and prepare details of applicants to be sent to own admission authority schools by 26th November 2007.
18. All preferences for schools within this LA will be considered by the relevant
admission authorities between 26 November 2007 and 18 January 2008 without reference to rank order except where this is explicitly included in an admission authority’s published over-subscription criteria, subject to the provisions in the Admissions Code of Practice (Sept 06) for entry in September 2008.
19. This LA will participate in the data checking exercise to be scheduled between
17 December 2007 and 2 January 2008 in the Pan London timetable 20. By 21 January 2008, all admission authorities within the Royal Borough of
Kingston upon Thames, will have provided a list of applicants in criteria order to this LA and this LA shall, for each applicant who has qualified for more than one potential offer, use the highest ranked preference to decide which single potential offer to make.
Late Applications 21. The LA will only accept late applications and treat them as equivalent to
applications received by the closing date if the parent(s) move into the Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames after the closing date and can provide documentary evidence confirming this or if there are exceptional reasons why the application is late. Each late application will be considered separately and on its own merits. Any such applications will need to be received by 14
H21
December 2007, to enable them to be considered alongside applications received earlier.
22. Where such applications contain preferences for schools in other LAs, this LA
will forward the details to maintaining LAs via the PLR as they are received. This LA will accept late applications which are considered to be on time within the terms of the home LA’s scheme.
23. Where a parent moves from one participating Home LA to another after
submitting an on time application under the terms of the former Home LA’s scheme, the new Home LA will accept the applications as on time up to 14 December, on the basis that an on-time application already exists within the Pan London System.
24. Where a parent moves within the borough and wishes to change their
preferences to include schools closer to their new home address, any such applications will need to be received by 14 December 2007, to enable them to be considered alongside applications received earlier.
25. The latest date for the upload of late applications which are considered to be
on-time within the terms of the home LA’s scheme to the PLR is 14 December in the Application Year 2007.
26. Any late applications received after 14 December 2007 but before 1st March
2008 will not be considered in the initial allocation round and will be considered after all the on-time applications are processed.
Exchange of Offers Data via PLR 27. This LA will carry out all reasonable checks to ensure that pupil rankings are
correctly held in its LAS before uploading data to the PLR. 28. This LA will upload the highest potential offer available to an applicant for a
maintained school in this LA to the PLR by 6 February 2008. The PLR will transmit the highest potential offer made by the maintaining LA to the Home LA.
29. The local admissions system (LAS) of this LA, as the home LA for The Royal
Borough of Kingston upon Thames parents, will eliminate all but the highest ranked offer where an applicant has more than one potential offer across the maintaining LAs for whose school(s) he/she has applied (provided that those LAs each submit this information within the deadline to the PLR. This will involve exchanges of information between the LAS and the PLR which will continue until a steady state is achieved (which the PLR will indicate), or until 19 February 2008 if this is sooner. This LA will transmit to the PLR information about which final offers have and have not been made no less than 5 working days before 3 March 2008. The PLR will in turn transmit this information to the LAS of the relevant maintaining LAs for their information.
30. This LA will participate in the offer data checking exercise scheduled between
20 and 27 February 2008 in the Pan London timetable.
H22
31. This LA will send a file to the E-Admissions portal with outcomes for all residents who have applied online no later than 27 February 2008.
National Offer Day – 3 March 2008 32. On 3 March 2008, this LA will send out by first class post notification of the
outcome to resident applicants. 33. Details of the pupils to be offered will be made available to each Kingston
school by 3 March 2008. 34. Kingston parents whose children do not qualify for a place at any of the schools
they apply for (in any LA) will be offered an alternative school on the national offer day (3 March) if at all possible. This school will be the nearest non-selective school to the home address with places remaining for boys and/or girls (as applicable). Allocation will be made in accordance with the school’s admission criteria and in consultation with the school’s admission authority. These parents will also be offered the opportunity to make late applications to Kingston schools to which they did not originally apply.
35. This LA has agreed, for the purposes of paragraphs 2(e), 4(d) and 4(e) of the
Schedule to the Regulations, that as the Home LA it will inform all applicants who live within the borough of their highest offer of a school place, whether these were for schools in the home LA or in other LAs taking part in the Pan-London co-ordinated scheme.
36. This LA will provide primary schools with destination data of its resident
applicants before the end of the Summer term 2008. Post-offer Date Arrangements 37. Parents must accept or decline the offer of a place by 17 March 2008. If they
do not respond by this date, the LA or the school, where it is its own admission authority, will make every reasonable effort to contact the parent to find out whether or not they wish to accept or decline the place. Only where the parent fails to respond and the LA or the school, where it is its own admission authority, can demonstrate that every reasonable effort has been made to contact the parent, will the place be withdrawn.
38. Where a parent resident in this LA accepts or declines a place in a school
maintained by another LA by 17 March 2008, this LA will forward the information to the maintaining LA by 24 March 2008. Where such information is received from parents between 17 March and 31 August 2008, this LA will pass it to the maintaining LA as and when it is received.
39. In the period 3 March to 31 August 2008, this LA will seek to ensure that a
place is not offered at a school in its area which is ranked on the CAF as a lower preference than any school already offered.
40. In the period 3 March to 31 August 2008, this LA will inform the Home LA of
any change to an applicant’s offer status as soon as it occurs.
H23
41. In the period 3 March to 31 August 2008, this LA will accept new applications
(including additional preferences) for its schools from Home LAs. Waiting List Arrangements 42. Where a child does not receive an offer of their highest preference, their name
will automatically be placed on the waiting list for each Kingston school for which they are eligible, that is a higher preference school to the one they have been offered. Parents will be advised that if they want to go on the waiting list for an out-borough school they should contact that school’s maintaining LA.
43. F and VA schools will be sent their updated lists at this time and will include
outcomes of reply slips from parents. 44. Parents with a higher preference offer can request that their child’s name is
added to waiting lists for lower preference schools. 45. Until 31 August 2008, waiting lists for all non-selective schools will be held in
criteria order and will consist firstly of those children who had applied initially and for whom the school is still a higher preference together with any applicants who apply as a result of moving into the area; followed by those who received a higher initial offer and/or those who made initial applications but did not name the school as a preference.
46. From 1st September 2008, all names on all non-selective schools’ waiting lists
will be placed on a single new list in criteria order only. 47. For selective schools, the waiting lists will be generated by the ranked score list
and parental preference based on the outcome of co-ordinated admissions on 1st March 2008.
48. For The Tiffin Girls’ School, this waiting list will be maintained from 3 March
2008 until the end of the Autumn term in December 2008. During this period if the admission number for Year 7 falls below 120, further offers will be made from the waiting list and offered to the next child on the list. If there is more than one child who achieves the score at which the next offer is made, the place will be offered to the child who lives nearest to the school, as measured using the shortest approved walking route. All distances will be measured using the Council’s computerised Geographical Information system. Any remaining children who achieve the same score will remain on the waiting list in distance order, followed by the next pupil on the list in descending order of standardised score and distance , if applicable. The last score at which a place is offered by 31 December 2008, is the final cut-off mark for that year group.
49. For Tiffin School, the waiting list will be maintained from 3 March until 30
September 2008. 50. For F and VA schools, waiting lists will be maintained and places allocated, as
they become available, in accordance with each admission authority’s published admission arrangements.
H24
51. Where a place is allocated from the waiting list, the offering admission authority
must advise the LA as it occurs. For residents of this borough, this LA will check for alternative offers and, if the child has a multiple offer, will contact the parent to establish which offer they wish to accept. (For non-residents, this LA will advise the home LA). The outcome will be shared with each affected school and/or LA as appropriate.
52. Applications received after 3 March 2008, will be added to community school
waiting lists or passed on to the relevant admissions authority as appropriate. Casual Admissions 53. Casual admissions (overage admissions), i.e. the admission of children after the
normal age of admission to a school, will be administered in accordance with the overage admissions protocol used by admission authorities in RB Kingston. For over-subscribed year groups waiting lists will be maintained according to the published admissions criteria for the school.
H25
SCHEDULE 1 This LA’s Common Application Form will contain the following data fields as a minimum: Applicant’s details: Surname First name Date of Birth Gender Name of current primary school Address of primary school (if outside Home LA) Parent/Carer details (for one or two parents or carers): Title and initial Surname Initials or Forename Address Telephone Number (Home, Daytime, Mobile) Email address Relationship to child Details of each school given as a preference (up to a maximum of six): Name of secondary school Address of secondary school Preference ranking Local Authority in which school is based DfES Number of secondary school Additional information: Reasons for preferences (including any particular family, social or medical
needs) Does the applicant have a Statement of Special Educational Needs? Is the applicant a child looked after by a local authority?
If yes, name of local authority responsible for the child • If the applicant has sibling/s, name of school sibling/s attend? • Surname of Sibling • Forename of Sibling • DOB and Gender of Sibling Other • Signature of parent or guardian • Date of signature. • Where a school for which the applicant has applied requires further information to
apply its admission criteria, parents are advised to complete such supplementary information forms.
H26
SCHEDULE 2 KINGSTON COORDINATED SECONDARY ADMISSION ARRANGEMENTS 2008
DRAFT TIMETABLE (AS AT NOVEMBER 2006)
Date
Action
2007
June
Publicity for Year 5 parents
June – 31 August
Exchange data on out-borough resident Year 5 pupils in LA maintained schools
1 October
Cycle of Open Evenings commence
19 October
Closing date for applications
12 November
Deadline for ADT files to PLR
26 November
Application data passed to VA/Foundation schools – (target date for Tiffin is by 19 November to accommodate tests)
26 Nov 07– 21Jan 08
LA - process applications for Community Schools
26 Nov 07– 21Jan 08
VA/Foundation schools process applications against admissions criteria
14 December 07
Final date for receipt of “on-time” applications
2008
22 January
Ranked lists containing all applicants received by LA from VA/Foundation Schools
From 6 February –19 February
Sending/receiving of potential offers via PLR to out of borough LAs to identify single offer
3 March Send outcomes of applications to resident parents/guardians and inform RBK schools of final offers
17 March
Return of reply slips
By 24 March
LAs exchange data from reply slips and pass onto schools
H27
APPENDIX 2 (to Annex 2)
THE ROYAL BOROUGH OF KINGSTON UPON THAMES LEARNING AND CHILDREN’S SERVICES
CO-ORDINATED SCHEME FOR PRIMARY SCHOOL ADMISSIONS
FOR SEPTEMBER 2008 The School Admissions Code of Practice defines the responsibilities of Local Authorities (LAs) in determining primary admissions arrangements, which must be co-ordinated within LA boundaries, from September 2006 and beyond. Glossary of terms in the scheme “the LA area” means the area in respect of which the LA is the local
authority “the Home LA” means the LA in which the applicant is resident
“the Common Application Form”
this is the form that each LA must have under the Regulations for parents to use to make their applications which must be listed in rank order
“casual admission”
means any application for a place in the first year of primary education that is received after 1 September 2007
“the specified year”
means the school year beginning in September 2007
“eligible for a place”
means that a child has been placed on a school’s ranked list at such a point which falls within the school’s published admission arrangements
The Scheme The scheme shall be determined in accordance with the provisions set out in paragraphs 1 to 29 and processed in accordance with the timetable set out in Schedule 1. The scheme shall apply to every maintained primary school in the LA area, including Voluntary Aided and Foundation primary schools, (except special schools). Applications 1. Applications for any maintained primary school in Kingston will be made on
Kingston’s Common Application Form (CAF) or online, and listed in rank order of preference.
2. The CAF will be used for the purpose of admitting pupils into the first year of
primary or junior schools in the LA’s area in September 2008. 3. Applicants will be able to express three preferences, in rank order for a primary
H28
school maintained by the LA, and be able to give reasons for each preference. 4. Applicants will receive only one offer of a maintained primary school place in
Kingston. If a place cannot be offered at a nominated school, wherever possible, the LA will offer Kingston residents a place at an alternative school. This will be at the closest community school with a vacancy. The distance will be measured from the applicant’s home address using the shortest approved route measured by the Council’s computerised Geographical Information System. RB Kingston parents will also be advised of any RB Kingston VA or Foundation schools with possible vacancies.
5. Kingston residents who apply for a Year 3 place at a junior school and who are
not offered one of their preferences, will be offered a place at an alternative school if they are not already attending a primary school. This will be at the closest community junior school with a vacancy. The distance will be measured from the applicant’s home address using the shortest approved route measured by the Council’s computerised Geographical Information System. RB Kingston parents will also be advised of any RB Kingston VA or Foundation schools with possible vacancies.
6. If a place cannot be offered to an applicant who does not live in Kingston he/she
will be advised to contact their ‘Home LA’ for further guidance. 7. If a child is eligible for more than one school for which an application has been
made on the CAF, a place will be offered at the highest ranking nominated school for which they are eligible for a place.
8. The LA will take all reasonable steps to ensure that every parent who is resident
in the LA area who will be applying for a place in a Reception class of a primary school or the first year of a junior school for their child receives a copy of the CAF and a copy of the Primary School Admissions Booklet.
9. The LA will make appropriate arrangements to ensure that the CAF is available
on request from the LA and from all maintained primary schools in the LA area. 10. The LA will ensure that the CAF is accompanied by a written explanation of the
co-ordinated admissions scheme and that parents are clearly informed of how to apply for schools outside the LA area.
11. Parents will be advised in RB Kingston’s “Primary Schools Admissions Booklet”
of the importance of completing supplementary information forms to enable schools which require this additional information to apply their admissions criteria. This LA will also advise parents that any applications made without completing supplementary information forms for schools which require them, will be ranked after all those which submitted completed supplementary information forms.
12. This LA will share the details of each application with own admission authority
schools to enable schools to apply their admission criteria. 13. All preferences expressed on the CAF are valid applications. The governing
H29
body of a foundation or VA school can require parents who wish to nominate, or have nominated, their school on the CAF, to provide additional information on a supplementary information form only where the additional information is required for the governing body to apply their over-subscription criteria to the application. Where a supplementary information form is required it must be returned to the school/s.
14. Where a school receives a supplementary information form it will not be
regarded as a valid application unless the parent has also completed a CAF and the school is nominated on it.
15. Under the requirements of the scheme, parents will not be under any obligation
to complete an individual school’s supplementary information form where this is not strictly required for the governing body to apply their over-subscription criteria.
16. Schools which receive CAFs in error must inform the LA and send the forms to
them as soon as possible. If the LA receives supplementary information forms in error, it must send them to the schools as soon as possible.
17. Schools requiring a supplementary information form will check that each
applicant has completed a supplementary information form and contact applicants to follow up any supplementary information forms that have not been received,
Processing of CAFs and determining offers in response to the CAF 19. The closing date for receipt of completed CAFs is 31 January 2008. Completed
CAFs are to be returned to the LA. 20. The LA will act as a clearing house for the allocation of places by the relevant
admission authorities in response to the CAFs. The LA will make a decision with respect to the offer or refusal of a place in response to any preference expressed on the CAF where :
i) it is acting in its separate capacity as an admission authority, or ii) an applicant is eligible for a place at more than one school, or
iii) an applicant is not eligible for a place at any school that the parent has
nominated. 21. By 26 February 2008 the LA will notify admission authorities of every application
that has been made for their school. This will include any information submitted by the applicant which schools require in order to apply their over-subscription criteria.
22. By 17 March 2008, the admission authority for each school will consider all
applications for their schools, apply the school’s admissions criteria and provide the LA with a list of those applicants ranked according to the school’s admissions criteria.
H30
23. The LA will match this ranked list against the ranked lists of the other schools
nominated, and:
i) where the child is eligible for a place at only one of the nominated schools, that school will be allocated to the child;
ii) where the child is eligible for a place at two or more of the nominated
schools, he/she will be allocated a place at the highest ranking nominated school for which he/she is eligible ;
iii) where the child is not eligible for a place at the nominated school or any
of the nominated schools, and if the child is a Kingston resident, wherever possible, he/she will be allocated the nearest appropriate Kingston community school with a place available. Parents will also be advised of any RB Kingston VA or Foundation schools with possible vacancies.
iv) where the child is not eligible for a place at the nominated school or any
of the nominated schools, and if the child is not a Kingston resident, the letter which will inform the parent of the outcome of the application, will advise the parent to contact their Home LA i.e. the Education department of the borough where the child resides.
24. On the 21 April 2008 the LA will inform its schools of the pupils to be offered
places at their schools. Notification of outcome of application 25. On 22 April 2008 the LA will send notification to parents advising of the outcome
of their application(s), including (where appropriate) the offer of a place at the allocated school.
26. This letter will name the school at which a place is offered and, if appropriate,
provide a brief explanation of why the child is not being offered a place at any of the other higher ranked schools nominated on the CAF. The letter will advise parents about their statutory right of appeal against the decision(s) to refuse a place at the other nominated school(s). Parents will also be provided with contact details for the LA and other relevant admission authorities for those nominated foundation and VA schools where they were not offered a place, so that they can lodge an appeal with the governing body.
27. A reply slip will be attached, on which parents must state whether or not they
are accepting the place offered, to be returned to the preferred school being offered, by 14 May 2008.
28. If parents do not respond by 14 May 2008, schools will follow up any parents
who have not returned their reply slips.
H31
29. After 14 May 2008, places that may have become vacant since 22 April 2008, will be re-allocated by each admission authority in accordance with its published admission arrangements.
30. Admission authorities will inform the LA of further offers made and of known
alternative destinations of children who refuse offers. Waiting List Arrangements 31. The letter, notifying parents of the outcome of their application, will also inform
them that their child’s name will be automatically placed on the waiting list for higher preference schools than the one offered.
32. Parents with a higher preference offer can request that their child’s name is
added to waiting lists for lower preference schools. 33. Until 31st August 2008, waiting lists for community schools will be held in criteria
order and will consist firstly of those children who had applied initially and for whom the school is still a higher preference together with any applicants who apply as a result of moving into the area; followed by those who received a higher initial offer and/or those who made initial applications but did not name the school as a preference.
34. From 1st September 2008, all names on community schools’ waiting lists will be
placed on a single new list in criteria order only. 35. For F and VA schools, waiting lists will be maintained and places allocated, as
they become available, in accordance with each admission authority’s published admission arrangements.
Late Applications
36. The closing date for applications in the normal admissions round is 31 January
2008. The LA will only accept late applications and treat them as equivalent to applications received by the closing date if the parent(s) move into the borough after the closing date and can provide documentary evidence confirming this or if there are exceptional reasons why the application is late. Each late application will be considered separately and on its own merits. Any such applications will need to be received by 22 February 2008, to enable them to be considered alongside applications received earlier.
37. Where a parent moves within the borough and wishes to change their
preferences to include schools closer to their new home address, any such applications will need to be received by 22 February 2008, to enable them to be considered alongside applications received earlier.
37. Any late applications made direct to any school on the CAF must be forwarded
to the LA immediately. Where a school receives a supplementary information form after the closing date the school must inform the LA immediately so it can verify whether a CAF has been received from the parent and, if not, contact the parent and ask them to complete a CAF. The LA will enter the CAF details onto
H32
its central database and, after consultation with the relevant admission authority, offer a place at the highest ranked school with a place available or if this is not possible at the nearest community school with a place available. Applicants who are not Kingston residents will be advised to contact their Home Authority for further advice.
Casual Admissions 38. Applications received after 1 September 2008, and applications for places in a
year group other than the normal year of entry to primary school, will be treated as casual admissions. These applications should be made direct to the parents’ preferred school/s.
H33
Schedule 1
KINGSTON COORDINATED PRIMARY ADMISSION ARRANGEMENTS FOR SEPTEMBER 2008
DRAFT TIMETABLE OF CO-ORDINATED SCHEME Date
Action
31 January 2008
Closing date for receipt of CAFs to LA and supplementary information forms to schools
22 February 2008 Final date for receipt of late applications (as defined in paragraphs 35 and 36) to be considered as on-time applications
26 February 2008
Details of applications to be sent to VA and Foundation schools
17 March 2008
Foundation and VA schools to provide LA with ranked list of applicants
17 March – 21 April 2008
LA will match ranked lists of all schools and allocate places in accordance with paragraph 22
21 April 2008 LA will inform schools of pupils to be offered places at their schools
22 April 2008
Notification of outcomes of application(s) sent to parents
14 May 2008
Last date for offers to be accepted by parents
14 May 2008
Each admission authority will assume the responsibility of maintaining their own waiting lists and of making further offers
28 May 2008
Deadline for receipt of community school appeals from parents
June /July 2008
Appeal hearings for community infant, primary and junior schools
APPENDIX I Executive, 20 March 2007
LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FRAMEWORK: LOCAL DEVELOPMENT SCHEME AND MEMBER STEERING GROUP Report by the Head of Planning and Development Executive Member for Transport, Planning and Regeneration
Purpose This report sets out a revised local development scheme (LDS) outlining the Council’s timetable for preparing local development documents. It also sets out proposals for a member steering group to inform and oversee the work on emerging local development documents. Action proposed by the Executive Member for: Transport, Planning and Regeneration The Executive is requested to: 1. approve the revised Local Development Scheme (Annex 1) for submission to the
Secretary of State, and agree that the revised Local Development Scheme be brought into effect four weeks from the date of submission to the Secretary of State, unless the Secretary of State intervenes during the period (or requests more time); and
2. agree that a member steering group be established to oversee and inform preparation
of the Local Development Framework, based upon the following principles:
a) Proportionate party representation; b) Cross neighbourhood representation; c) Membership shall include the Executive Member for Transport, Planning
and Regeneration, and the Chair of the Development Control Committee (to establish a link between policy formulation and development control decisions).
Reason for action proposed To enable a revised LDS to be submitted to the Secretary of State ahead of the deadline (1st April 2007), and to formally establish an LDF member steering group. BACKGROUND 1. The Council’s Local Development Framework is currently being prepared.
Some documents have already been adopted (Statement of Community Involvement and three supplementary planning documents). The Kingston Town Centre Area Action Plan (K+20) is due to be submitted to the Secretary of State in May 2007. Work has started on the core strategy, development control policies, a waste plan, and an area action plan for the Hogsmill Valley/Kingsmeadow area.
I - 2
2. This report proposes that a revised Local Development Scheme be approved for
submission to the Secretary of State, and that a member steering group be established to help deliver the programme of work contained within the scheme.
LOCAL DEVELOPMENT SCHEME 3. The Local Development Scheme (LDS) is an important element of the LDF. It is the
Council’s published programme for preparing local development documents – the component parts of the LDF. The Council’s first LDS was published in March 2005, and was subsequently revised in February 2006. A further revision is proposed at Annex 1. This further revision has been prompted by, and is in response to, government advice which has stated that planning authorities might want to reassess their LDSs in light of their Annual Monitoring Reports and of documents that need to be prepared to support the implementation of PPS3 (Housing) which was published in November 2006.
5. The LDF is a long-term and ongoing project – there will always be a need to prepare,
replace or revise documents. For this reason the LDS can and should be updated as the need arises. However, the LDS is also supposed to provide a definitive programme of document preparation so that stakeholders know what to expect and when. Slippage against milestones has been commonplace as planning authorities grapple with the complexities of the new planning system.
6. The government is now looking to improve the reliability of LDS’s. Planning authorities
have until 1st April 2007 to submit a revised LDS in light of annual monitoring and recent changes to national policy. After 1st April 07 LDS’s will be regarded as the definitive programme management document. Departure from the agreed programme will only be sanctioned by government in exceptional circumstances or as agreed in response to annual monitoring. Poor performance against milestones is likely to result in a reduced funding allocation to the Planning service.
PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE 2006 LDS 7. The proposed changes to the LDS have been made in response to recent and
emerging government guidance, and having taken into account the outcomes of recent Examinations on other LDF documents across the country. Kingston’s Annual Monitoring Report, reported to Executive in November 2006, flagged up the need to revise the LDS for the following reasons:
• problems implementing the new planning system (illustrated by the country’s first two core strategies being rejected as unsound);
• discussions with GOL over the soundness of K+20; • the need to redraft a key sustainability appraisal document; • the need to undertake Appropriate Assessment, a new requirement to ensure
that sites of European importance for wildlife habitat are protected. 8. Furthermore, in accordance with best practice and having regard to government
advice, consultation has been taking place with the Government Office for London (GOL) and the Planning Inspectorate (PINS) to ensure that the revised LDS is sound, realistic and robust. The main issue arising was the submission of multiple documents at the same time - an approach that was taken in an early draft of the LDS. For this reason the timing of the development control policies and the Hogsmill area action
I - 3
plan have been amended so that they will be examined after the inspector’s findings on the core strategy have been published.
9. The proposed revised LDS is attached at Annex 1. The following bullets summarise
the key proposed changes to the Council’s currently adopted LDS:
• Statement of Community Involvement: This has now been adopted so no longer appears with a timeline.
• Kingston town centre Area Action Plan (AAP): submission has slipped from
September 2006 to May 2007 following protracted discussions with GOL over the soundness of the plan.
• Core strategy: There has been 16 months slippage to the Preferred Options stage.
Whilst early work has been progressing on the core strategy, the original milestone was clearly over-ambitious. In addition it was necessary to ‘take stock’ in light of the country’s first two core strategies being deemed unsound by the inspectorate. Some authorities have withdrawn their core strategies from proceeding to examination in light of those decisions whilst others are considering repeating early stages. Progress is now being made, with consultation on issues presently underway, and consultation on policy options scheduled for September 2007.
• Development control policies: Instead of preparing these in two tranches as was
originally proposed, it is now planned to undertake them in one phase, following the core strategy with which they must comply.
• Hogsmill Valley/Kingsmeadow area action plan: slippage to the timetable has
been caused by the prolonged process for K+20, and slippage on the core strategy with which the Area Action Plan must conform. The AAP is programmed to follow the core strategy so that it can be examined as soon as possible after the core strategy examination.
• Site-specific allocations: This document will follow the core strategy.
Commencement is due mid 2010 once the bulk of work is complete on the core strategy and development control policies. Should monitoring of development identify a need to make site allocations this document will become more of a priority and the Local Development Scheme will be amended accordingly. However at the moment the borough has sufficient housing land supply including saved UDP sites and sites within the Kingston town centre area action plan.
• Waste: A waste DPD, to be prepared jointly with Sutton, Merton and Croydon, was
mentioned in the previous LDS as a possibility. This is now formally enshrined in the LDS, albeit without a timeline as yet. The timetable is being worked up by the consultants employed to prepare the document and will need to be inserted once known. This will need another report to Executive at a future date.
• Kingston University, Knights Park development brief (supplementary planning
document): This has been cancelled since the University is no longer planning to dispose of the site.
• Kingston Old Town supplementary planning document: This will add detail and
guidance to the town centre area action plan policies that relate to the Old Town
I - 4
conservation area, building on work already done to inform the AAP. The intention is to publish a draft as soon as the town centre area action plan is adopted.
• Supplementary Planning Documents on residential design and planning
obligations: These documents will be prepared to add detail and guidance to the relevant core strategy policies. They are therefore affected by changes to the core strategy timetable. The planning obligations SPD is also affected by the government’s proposed reform of planning obligations and the introduction of Planning Gain Supplement.
LDF MEMBER STEERING GROUP 10. It is recommended that a member steering group be set up to oversee and
inform the LDF. A member group did previously exist which began life as the K+20 steering group and evolved into the LDF member working group. That group was chaired by the Executive Portfolio holder with responsibility for planning and comprised around eleven members. This number was quite difficult to administer, and attendance varied. It is considered that a smaller group would produce better oversight, with composition based upon the following principles:
Proportionate party representation; Cross neighbourhood representation; The membership shall include the Executive Member for Transport,
Planning and Regeneration, and the Chair of the Development Control Committee.
11. It is considered important to ensure that a strong link is established
between policy formulation and the Council’s development control function. This would help to ensure that development control decisions are taken against the backcloth of a strategic policy framework.
12. The steering group would not have decision-making powers. That would
reside with the Executive/ Council as appropriate, but the group would provide invaluable support in steering and advising on the production of the various documents, reporting through the Executive.
13. The group is important given the need to speed up plan production and streamline
plan-making processes. A particularly valuable role is in giving advice, from both a strategic and local perspective, on emerging documents before they are approved for consultation. Neighbourhoods would then be able to give their views as part of the consultation process.
14. Such a group has proved very helpful in the past with UDP and the earlier stages of
LDF preparation. Its relative informality has allowed new ideas and approaches to surface and current views to be challenged, which is particularly valuable when the documents are still at an early stage of development.
15. It is likely that the Steering Group will meet on average about every two months but
frequency may vary as different stages are reached with different documents. The first meeting could be scheduled for April 2007.
I - 5
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS 16. There are no direct environmental implications arising from the LDS, though the
planning policy documents proposed within it will address environmental issues. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 17. There are no direct financial implications arising from the establishment of a Member
steering group. The programme of work for the LDF is funded from existing budgets and Planning Delivery Grant allocations.
NETWORK IMPLICATIONS 18. There are no network implications arising from the revised LDS and establishment of a
Member Steering Group. Links between transport and planning policy will be addressed in the Local Development Documents themselves.
Background papers: held by Daniel Hawes, 020 8547 5355; e-mail: daniel.hawes@rbk.Kingston,gov.uk
• RBK Local Development Scheme (First Revision), February 2006 • PPS12: Local Development Frameworks
ANNEX TO APPENDIX I
Local Development Scheme
Draft Second Revision
For consideration by Executive on 20th March 2007
To be submitted to the Secretary of State by 1st April 2007
If you would like to get in touch with the Council on any issue relating to the Local Development Framework then please contact: Planning Policy Section: Guildhall 2 Kingston Upon Thames Surrey KT1 1EU Telephone 020 8547 5302 Fax 020 8547 5363 E-mail planningpolicy@rbk.kingston.gov.uk
Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames Local Development Framework
Contents Page
1. Introduction 1 2. Process for preparing Local Development Documents 5 3. Kingston’s LDF programme 5 4. Resources 10 5. Risk Assessment 10 Table 1 Summary of Kingston’s Local Development Framework 3 Table 2 Royal Borough of Kingston Supplementary Planning Guidance 4 Table 3 Process for preparing Local Development Documents 5 Table 4 Three-year timelines for RBK Local Development Documents 9 Annex 1 Profiles of Local Development Documents 11 • Area Action Plan for Kingston Town Centre DPD 11 • Core Strategy DPD 13 • Waste DPD 14 • Hogsmill Valley /Kingsmeadow Area Action Plan DPD 15 • Development Control Policies DPD 16 • Site allocations DPD 17 • Proposals Map and Inset Maps DPD 18 • Kingston Old Town Conservation Area SPD 19 • Residential Design SPD 20 • Planning Obligations SPD 21 Annex 2 Glossary 22
- 2 -
1. Introduction The Local Development Framework 1.1 Under Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 the Council must prepare a Local Development Framework (LDF) to replace its Unitary Development Plan: First Alteration (UDP). The Local Development Framework will contain local planning policies and guidance for the Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames, and will comprise several documents:
• Local Development Scheme • Development Plan Documents (DPDs) including a core strategy • Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) • Statement of Community Involvement • Annual Monitoring Report
1.2 Whilst the LDF is being prepared, UDP policies are automatically saved for a three year period, starting either from the date the Act commenced (September 2004) or the date the UDP was adopted (August 2005). They can be saved for longer, subject to approval by the Secretary of State (see paragraph 1.10 for more on saving Kingston’s UDP policies). Local Development Scheme 1.3 This Local Development Scheme is a published project plan for the other documents in the LDF. The original LDS was published in March 2005, followed by a first revision in January 2006. This version is the second revision of the original scheme. 1.4 Table 1 summarises the documents in Kingston’s LDF, with the date they were adopted, or are scheduled for adoption. Section 2 explains the statutory process for preparing Local Development Documents, with timelines for the production of LDDs in Kingston. Further detail on each document is provided at Annex 1. 1.5 Future documents not outlined in this scheme are likely to include an Area Action Plan for Tolworth. Other documents will be brought forward through a revised LDS as the need arises. The Council’s annual monitoring report will inform future revisions of the scheme. Development Plan Documents (DPDs) 1.6 These documents include a core strategy, development control policies, area action plans and topic based policy documents (e.g. waste). Together with the London Plan they comprise the statutory development plan. Planning applications should be determined in accordance with the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. 1.7 DPDs are subject to rigorous procedures of community involvement and examination by an independent Inspector. Development Plan Documents must
- 3 -
comply with government policy and be in general conformity with the London Plan.
Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) 1.8 These provide more detailed guidance on specific topics or sites. Supplementary Planning Documents must be consistent with Development Plan Documents. They are a material consideration when determining planning applications, but are not subject to independent examination. They are therefore afforded less ‘weight’ than Development Plan Documents. Statement of Community Involvement 1.9 The Council adopted a Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) in January 2007. This sets out how the community will be engaged when preparing local development documents and in the planning applications process. Annual Monitoring Report (AMR) 1.10 Each year the Council prepares an annual monitoring report which sets out the progress of document production against the timescales in the scheme. It also monitors the effect of policies and proposals in the UDP or LDF. The Council will produce its AMR before the end of December each year. The AMR may highlight the need to review the programme of work detailed in the Local Development Scheme. Saving the UDP policies 1.11 The UDP first alteration was adopted in August 2005. It was a partial review of the original 1998 UDP. Policies that were not subject to review are automatically saved to September 2007. Policies that were altered during the review are automatically saved until August 2008. In accordance with the DCLG Protocol for extending saved policies (published August 2005), the Council will make two applications to the Secretary of State to save UDP policies beyond the relevant three year period. Saved UDP policies will be replaced as new DPDs are adopted. Supplementary Planning Guidance 1.12 This is the forerunner of SPDs. The Council currently has a number of SPGs listed at Table 2.
- 4 -
Table 1: Royal Borough of Kingston’s Local Development Framework Document Purpose Adoption Statement of Community Involvement
Sets out approach to community and stakeholder involvement both for plan-making and planning applications
January 2007
Development Plan Documents Kingston Town Centre Area Action Plan
To promote and manage the future development of Kingston Town Centre
October 2008
Core Strategy Sets the vision and strategy for meeting anticipated development needs for the next 10-15 years
June 2010
Waste DPD To identify sites for new waste management facilities across Kingston Upon Thames, Croydon, Sutton and Merton boroughs
Timetable to be confirmed
Hogsmill Valley /Kingsmeadow Area Action Plan
To promote the enhancement and use of this area of the Hogsmill Valley and adjacent sites, identify appropriate development opportunities and review the MOL boundary.
January 2011
Development Control Policies
To provide detailed development control policies to help implement the core strategy objectives
October 2011
Site allocations DPD To identify sites for development and specify the use on those sites
December 2012
Proposals Map and Inset Maps
To illustrate area and site-specific policies and proposals.
To be updated with each Development Plan Document
Supplementary Planning Documents Access for All To provide guidance on designing in
inclusive access arrangements in new development
June 2005
Shopfronts and Shopsigns Design Guide
To provide guidance on design of shop fronts and shop signs.
June 2005
Affordable Housing To provide detailed guidance to assist the effective implementation of affordable housing policy.
February 2006
Kingston Old Town Conservation Area
To provide additional guidance on the Old Town Conservation Area, supporting the Kingston Town Centre Area Action Plan
April 2009
Residential Design To provide guidance on achieving good design appropriate to the borough.
February 2011
Planning Obligations
To provide additional information on planning obligations. Content will be affected by the proposed Planning Gain Supplement
February 2011
- 5 -
Table 2: Royal Borough of Kingston Supplementary Planning Guidance Title Published Residential Extensions SPG 1982
Landscape Design Guide SPG 1992
Conservation Area General Guide SPG 2002
Sustainable Construction SPG
2004
Development Briefs
Kingston Power Station, Skerne Road (PS1) April 1995
Kingston University, Kingston Hill (PS32) October 1993
Ashdown Road (UDP PS 22) Feb 2002
Kingston Hospital, Galsworthy Road (PS31) Dec 2001
St John’s Industrial Area (PS29) March 2003
Hook Rise South, Tolworth (PS42) March 2003
Vicarage Road, Kingston (PS2) June 2003
Cocks Crescent, New Malden (PS33a) April 2003
Station Car Park, Surbiton (PS39a) June 2004
- 6 -
2. Process for Preparing Local Development Documents 2.1 The process for preparing Development Plan Documents and
Supplementary Planning Documents is set down in Government Regulations and Planning Policy Statement 12 ‘Local Development Frameworks’. The stages of production are summarised as follows:
Table 3: Statutory processes for preparing local development documents Process for preparing Development Plan Documents 1 Issues and
Options Evidence gathering, early contact with key stakeholders, and local communities
2 Preferred options
Formal public participation on preferred options for policies and proposals over a six-week period (accompanied by a ‘sustainability report’).
3 Submission
The Council submits its plan to the Secretary of State. Representations can be made which the inspector will consider when testing the plan for soundness.
4 Examination The Inspector considers whether the plan is ‘sound’, based on nine tests of soundness.
5 Inspector’s report
The Council receives the Inspector’s findings which are binding on the authority.
6 Adoption The Council can formally adopt the Development Plan Document
Process for preparing Supplementary Planning Documents 1 Prepare
consultation draft
Evidence gathering, early contact with key stakeholders, and local communities
2 Publish Draft SPD
4 to 6 week period for consultation on draft Supplementary Planning Document
3 Adoption Council makes changes in light of representations and adopts the Supplementary Planning Document.
3. Kingston’s LDF programme 3.1 Table 4 below shows the timelines for all the proposed Local Development Documents, indicating the key ‘milestones’. The rationale for the programme outlined in table 4, and in the documents profiles at Annex 1 is as follows: Development Plan Documents 3.2 The Kingston town centre AAP is the Council’s first DPD – the programmed date for submission is May 2007. This plan is crucial to the future development and well-being of Kingston town centre, which itself is the principal focus for change and development within the Borough. The AAP proposes significant new development and a range of improvements to enhance
- 7 -
Kingston’s role as a metropolitan centre and sub-regional shopping centre consistent with the London Plan and PPS6 (Planning for Town Centres). 3.3 The area action plan is programmed ahead of the core strategy in response to local circumstances and the priority afforded to this metropolitan town centre. The need for action to shape future development and regeneration of the town centre was recognised in 2001. After a decade of steady growth concerns were being expressed about the loss of daytime visitors and about the future attractiveness and vitality of the centre. Furthermore a retail study carried out in 2002 identified a need (and capacity) for additional retail floorspace, environmental and access improvements, and there was renewed developer interest in the town centre for significant retail development. 3.4 In November 2002 the Council’s Executive endorsed the preparation of a strategy for Kingston town centre, to be known as K+20. With the onset of the new planning system (introduced in September 2004) it made sense to prepare K+20 as an area action plan. The timing meant it would precede the core strategy, which could not realistically be prepared until the UDP was adopted (August 2005). The area action plan would be prepared in the context of the London Plan and up-to-date saved strategic (Part 1) policies in the UDP (which will themselves be replaced by the core strategy in due course). This aligns with the circumstances set out in PPS12 paragraph 2.9 which states “The core strategy should normally be the first development plan document to be produced except where the local planning authority has up to date saved policies and where the priority in the local development scheme is the preparation of an area action plan or other development plan document.” 3.5 Following submission of the plan in May 2007, it is envisaged that 5 months will be needed to carry out the two statutory periods for making site related representations (Regulations 29 and 33) and to prepare the material for the inspectorate before a pre-examination meeting. A pre-examination meeting is therefore envisaged in October 2007. The planning inspectorate suggest 2 - 3 months is necessary before the examination itself, so January 2008 is proposed for the examination, avoiding December and the Christmas period. On the basis that 6 months is allowed for receipt of the Inspector’s report, the Council should receive that by July 2008. The first opportunity to take the plan to Council for adoption is October 2008. 3.6 The core strategy timetable is considered to represent a realistic programme for preparation, given the need for significant community engagement and considerable close working across many sectors of the Council and its partners, including the Local Strategic Partnership. 3.7 The development control policies DPD can only be examined for soundness once the core strategy is found to be sound. The development control policies need to be written so that they comply with, and will help implement, the core strategy. The approach has therefore been taken to submit
- 8 -
the development control policies after the Inspector’s report has been received into the core strategy. The timeline allows for amendments to be made to the development control policies ahead of submission in response to any changes the inspector makes to the core strategy. 3.8 The Hogsmill/Kingsmeadow AAP has a regeneration focus and will be progressed as soon as it can following the core strategy with which it must comply. 3.9 A site allocations DPD is scheduled for later in the programme. This allows a discussion on sites to be had in the context of an approved core strategy. It also reduces the risk of slippage on the core strategy (which is the Council’s priority) being caused by prolonged discussion and debate on site specific matters resulting from the allocations DPD being prepared alongside it. As explained in its annual monitoring report, the Council is satisfied that it has sufficient housing land supply, including sites within the Kingston town centre area action plan, to meet housing requirements over the period at least until the site allocations DPD is proposed to be adopted. If monitoring suggests a need for a site allocation DPD to be brought forward this would be addressed through a revised LDS. 3.10 On the issue of waste the Council is working with the south London boroughs of Merton, Sutton and Croydon to establish joint waste procurement processes for municipal waste. In parallel, the principle of working jointly on planning issues for all waste is currently being progressed, alongside developing a joint strategy and programme for delivering sites to meet the waste imperative through the waste planning DPD. However, until the work has been progressed and the joint working arrangements formalised it is not possible to identify a fully considered timetable. This Council and its partner authorities are fully committed to progress the waste planning DPD in good time to meet the July 2010 target date of Article 7 of the Waste Framework Directive target. The LDS will be revised to include key milestones once a timetable for the waste DPD has been established. Supplementary Planning Documents 3.11 An SPD for the Kingston Old Town Conservation Area is proposed to help achieve objectives for the conservation area in line with the Kingston Town Centre area action plan. A character appraisal and management proposals have been prepared and it is proposed to publish a draft SPD following adoption of the area action plan. 3.12 An SPD on residential design will give guidance to help implement a core strategy policy on design. It will be informed by a borough character appraisal which will also serve to inform the core strategy. It is proposed to publish a draft SPD following adoption of the core strategy.
- 9 -
3.13 An SPD on planning obligations is also proposed to give guidance on the implementation of core strategy policies on infrastructure and planning obligations. It is proposed to publish a draft SPD following adoption of the core strategy. The content of the SPD (and possibly its timing) will depend on the government’s proposals for a Planning Gain Supplement with scaled back Section 106 contributions.
- 1
0 -
Tabl
e 4
: Th
ree-
year
tim
elin
es f
or R
BK
Loc
al D
evel
opm
ent
Doc
um
ents
20
07
20
08
20
09
20
10
Doc
um
ent
A
M
J J
A
SO
ND
JF
MA
MJ
JA
SO
ND
J F
MA
MJ
JA
SO
ND
JF
MA
MJ
JA
S O
N
King
ston
Tow
n Ce
ntre
Are
a Ac
tion
Plan
DPD
S
E
IR
A
Core
Str
ateg
y D
PD
P
O
S
E
IR
A
Join
t W
aste
DPD
P
rogr
amm
e to
be
dete
rmin
ed b
y So
uth
Wes
t Lo
ndon
Was
te P
lann
ing
Gro
up
Hog
smill
Val
ley/
Ki
ngsm
eado
w A
AP D
PD
PO
S
E
IR
Dev
elop
men
t Co
ntro
l Po
licie
s D
PD
P
O
S
Site
allo
catio
ns D
PD
C
King
ston
Old
Tow
n Co
nser
vatio
n Ar
ea S
PD
C
C
D
A
Res
iden
tial D
esig
n SP
D
C
CD
Infr
astr
uctu
re &
Ser
vice
s
Plan
ning
Obl
igat
ions
SPD
C
CD
Key
: C
=
Com
men
ce p
repa
ratio
n, g
athe
r ev
iden
ce a
nd e
ngag
e st
akeh
olde
rs
PO
= P
refe
rred
opt
ions
con
sulta
tion
S
=
Sub
mit
to S
ecre
tary
of
Stat
e
IR
= T
he C
ounc
il re
ceiv
es t
he I
nspe
ctor
’s R
epor
t (6
mon
ths
afte
r th
e ex
amin
atio
n in
acc
orda
nce
with
adv
ice
from
the
Pl
anni
ng I
nspe
ctor
ate)
E
=
Exa
min
atio
n
A
= A
dopt
ion
CD
= C
onsu
ltatio
n dr
aft
of S
PD
- 11 -
4. Resources 4.1 The Council’s Policy and Implementation Section within the Planning and
Development Department has responsibility for preparing the LDF. Within that section the Planning Policy Team and the Projects Team have responsibility for most of its elements. Conservation and Design teams also sit within Policy and Implementation and have a key role. Development Control teams will also be involved, as will many other departments and directorates outside Planning and Development to ensure a spatial planning approach is taken to deliver more corporate objectives. Consultants have been used to develop specific aspects of the evidence base, and in a more general advisory capacity.
4.2 Costs anticipated to be incurred by the LDF process are factored into
budgets set for the year. Planning Delivery Grant has helped develop certain evidence base studies and to receive expert advice, but there is uncertainty over future income from this source.
5. Risk Assessment 5.1 The main areas of risk, which could lead to slippage in the programme
have been identified as:
• Inadequate skills base, staff turnover and recruitment problems in the exceptionally tough London labour market;
• Uncertainty over the future level of Planning Delivery Grant generally and specifically the allocations for this Council;
• Political changes to policy directions or Council organisation and procedures, including through Council elections;
• Capacity of the Planning Inspectorate and other agencies to cope with demand for their services;
• Failure to make robust arrangements to meet the examination timetable
• Legal or other challenges. We will work closely with GOL, the Planning Inspectorate, the GLA and other agencies to ensure that the policies have a robust evidence base, there is well-audited community engagement, and correct procedures have been used.
• Changing circumstances or emerging development pressures which alter priorities and will lead to proposed addition or substitution of Local Development Documents.
• Poor project management • The scale and nature of consultation responses • Unanticipated delays in external events in particular examinations • Unexpected new evidence or poor management of the supply of
evidence
ANNEX 1
- 12 -
Profiles of each Local Development Document Area Action Plan for Kingston Town Centre Role and Purpose Kingston town centre is a popular and successful metropolitan centre. After a decade of steady growth in the 1990s, concerns were expressed about its future attractiveness and vitality following a loss of day time visitors to other centres. Kingston needs to enhance its role as a metropolitan centre, consistent with the London Plan and PPS6, by promoting new retail and commercial development alongside a range of other uses and improvements, to maintain its competitiveness and attraction, especially to catchment area shoppers. In June 2003, the Council launched K+20, with the aim of developing a vision and strategy for the town centre, in consultation with stakeholders and the local community. There is strong developer interest in redeveloping parts of the town centre which are in need of significant upgrading. In July 2003, the Council entered into a Co-operation Agreement with developer Hammerson, who are working on a masterplan for retail led mixed-use development. This agreement has been extended to mid 2007. Under the new planning system, an Area Action Plan is an appropriate tool to provide a planning framework to guide future development and improvement and actively plan for growth. The Issues consultation in 2004 is counting as the initial Regulation 25 consultation. Formal consultation under Regulation 26 was carried out in June/July 2005, including on an accompanying Sustainability Appraisal. It is vital that the Council can proceed with the Area Action Plan, which provides the basis for a pro-active approach to managing change, as well as conservation and enhancement of the town centre. Status Development Plan Document Geographical Coverage Kingston town centre. The town centre boundary in the AAP is consistent with that in the UDP. UDP Policies to be replaced All the policies in Chapter 12 on Kingston: STR21 (The Range of Functions in Kingston Town Centre), STR22 (Townscape Strategy), STR23 (Accessibility to and within the Town Centre), policies KTC1 to KTC27 and policies for Proposal Sites PS1 to 22a and PS29a. Conformity With national policies, the London Plan, saved UDP (Part 1) policies (except those it is intended to replace) and having regard to the Community Plan.
ANNEX 1
- 13 -
Timetable Evidence gathering / preparing issues and options in consultation (Regulation 25)
Began in 2003 as part of the K+20 strategy and ongoing to May 2005.
Formal six week public participation on preferred options (Regulation 26)
June – July 2005
Submission of DPD and ‘Submission Proposals Map’ showing how the adopted Proposals Map is to be amended.
May 2007
Pre-examination meeting October 2007 Examination commences January 2008 Adoption October 2008
Arrangements for Production Organisational Lead
Planning Projects Manager
Political Management
Executive Member with responsibility for planning.
Internal resources Projects Team Planning Policy Team Conservation and Design Team Highways and Transportation Partnership and Regeneration Unit Housing Department Environment and Sustainability Leisure Services
External resources
Consultants have undertaken various studies (retail, office capacity, parking, park and ride, cycle parking, integrated transport and Old Town Conservation Area) the results of which have informed the AAP.
Forms of consultation/ engagement
Initial engagement with stakeholders and consultation was undertaken as part of the K+20 strategy and included a workshop/launch event. For the ‘preferred options’ stage (Reg 26) a range of consultation methods were used including a questionnaire, workshop, meetings and exhibitions.
ANNEX 1
- 14 -
Core Strategy Role and Subject The Core Strategy will set the vision, strategic objectives, spatial strategy and core policies for the borough over a 10 to 15 year time horizon. Status Development Plan Document Geographical Coverage Borough-wide UDP Policies to be replaced The Core Strategy will replace a number of UDP policies, in particular the strategic (STR) policies. Conformity With the London Plan, and with regard to the Community Plan and other strategies. Timetable Evidence gathering / preparing issues and options/ early engagement/ consultation (Regulation 25)
January 2006
Formal six week public participation on preferred options (Regulation 26)
June 2008
Submission of DPD and ‘Submission Proposals Map’ showing how the adopted Proposals Map is to be amended.
March 2009
Pre-examination meeting June 2009 Examination commences September
2009 Adoption June 2010
Arrangements for Production
Organisational Lead LDF Manager Political Management Executive Member with responsibility for Planning Internal Resources
Planning Policy Team Development Control Team Projects Team Conservation and Design Highways & Transportation - Strategic Transport Manager and various other officers Environment & Sustainability – various. Plus input from Housing Services, Community Services, Education & Leisure, Partnerships & Regeneration and Central Policy team
External Resources Consultants for evidence base studies. Forms of Consultation/engagement
In accordance with the SCI.
ANNEX 1
- 15 -
Waste DPD Role and Purpose To address the need for sites for new waste management facilities on a sub-regional basis across the boroughs of Kingston upon Thames, Sutton, Merton and Croydon. Status Development Plan Document Geographical Coverage Kingston-Upon-Thames, Sutton, Merton and Croydon UDP Policies to be replaced MW1 Development of Waste Management Facilities, MW2 Waste and Environment Conformity With the London Plan and emerging Core Strategy. Timetable The timetable is in the process of being prepared. Evidence gathering, issues and options in consultation with key stakeholders (Regulation 25)
To be programmed
Formal six week public participation on preferred options (Regulation 26)
To be programmed
Submission of DPD and ‘Submission Proposals Map’ showing how the adopted Proposals Map is to be amended by the DPD
To be programmed
Pre-Examination Meeting To be programmed
Examination commences To be programmed
Estimated date for adoption To be programmed
Arrangements for Production Organisational Lead Senior policy planners working with
consultants Political Management Internal resources Planning Policy Team
Environment and Sustainability Dept External resources Enviros consultancy preparing the DPD Forms of Consultation/ Engagement
In accordance with the SCI.
ANNEX 1
- 16 -
Hogsmill Valley North & Kingsmeadow Area Action Plan Role and Purpose To provide the planning framework for the enhancement of the Metropolitan Open Land (MOL) in the Hogsmill Valley including the Hogsmill Sewage Works and its surrounding land, the Kingsmeadow area and neighbouring sites. The AAP will consider options available to enhance this underused area, and identify appropriate uses. This wide northerly part of the Hogsmill Valley MOL is subject to development pressures, e.g. for student housing on a disused part of the Hogsmill sewage works and new leisure facilities at Kingsmeadow sports ground. An important aim of the AAP will be progressing the implementation of the Hogsmill Valley Walk Strategy. Status Development Plan Document. Geographical Coverage Hogsmill Valley North / Kingsmeadow area. UDP Policies to be replaced Any UDP allocations and designations within the AAP boundary. Conformity With the London Plan and Core Strategy. Timetable Evidence gathering / preparing issues and options in consultation (Regulation 25)
January 2006
Formal six week public participation on preferred options (Regulation 26)
January 2009
Submission of DPD and ‘Submission Proposals Map’ showing how the adopted Proposals Map is to be amended by the DPD
November 2009
Pre-examination meeting March 2010 Examination commences May 2010 Adoption January
2011 Arrangements for Production Organisational Lead Planning Projects Manager Political Management Executive Member with responsibility for
Planning Internal Resources Projects Team
Planning Policy Team Conservation and Design Team Development Control Team Environment and Sustainability Highways and Transportation Leisure Services.
External Resources None Forms of Consultation/engagement
In accordance with the SCI
ANNEX 1
- 17 -
Development Control Policies Role and Content To provide detailed policies to help determine planning applications in accordance with the core strategy Status Development Plan Document Geographical Coverage Borough wide and site/area-specific. UDP Policies to be replaced A number of saved policies will be replaced by this DPD. Conformity With the London Plan and Core Strategy Timetable Evidence gathering / preparing issues and options in consultation (Regulation 25)
January 2006
Formal six week public participation on preferred options (Regulation 26)
September 2009
Submission of DPD and ‘Submission Proposals Map’ showing how the adopted Proposals Map is to be amended.
September 2010
Pre-examination meeting December 2010
Examination commences March 2011 Adoption October 2011 Arrangements for Production Organisational Lead LDF Manager Political Management Executive Member responsible for planning Internal resources Planning Policy team
Projects Team Development Control Team Conservation and Design Team Highways and Transportation Dept Housing Department Environment & Sustainability
External resources None Forms of Consultation/Engagement In accordance with the SCI
ANNEX 1
- 18 -
Site Allocations Role and Content To identify sites for development, and determining the uses on those sites. Status Development Plan Document Geographical Coverage Borough wide UDP Policies to be replaced Saved proposal sites Conformity With the London Plan and Core Strategy Timetable Evidence gathering / preparing issues and options in consultation (Regulation 25)
June 2010
Formal six week public participation on preferred options (Regulation 26)
February 2011
Submission of DPD and ‘Submission Proposals Map’ showing how the adopted Proposals Map is to be amended.
September 2011
Pre-examination meeting December 2011
Examination commences March 2012 Adoption December
2012 Arrangements for Production Organisational Lead LDF Manager Political Management Executive Member responsible for planning Internal resources Planning Policy team
Projects Team Development Control Team Conservation and Design Team Highways and Transportation Dept Housing Department Environment & Sustainability
External resources Potential use of consultants for evidence base studies and public participation.
Forms of Consultation/Engagement In accordance with the SCI
ANNEX 1
- 19 -
Proposals Map and Inset Maps Role and Purpose To illustrate on an OS base map, area and site-specific policies and proposals in the Development Plan Documents. It will also show saved area/site-specific policies until such time as they are replaced in Development Plan Documents. Further detail will be shown on inset maps. Status Development Plan Document Geographical Coverage Borough-wide (Proposals Map), parts of Borough (Inset Maps). UDP Policies to be replaced As Development Plan Documents replace UDP policies, the UDP Proposals Map and insets will be updated accordingly. Conformity With saved policies and adopted DPDs Timetable
Updated as each DPD is adopted
Development Plan Document Date of adoption Kingston Town Centre Area Action Plan October 2008 Core Strategy June 2010 Joint Waste DPD To be programmed Hogsmill Valley North/Kingsmeadow Area Action Plan January 2011 Development Control Policies DPD October 2011 Site Allocations DPD December 2012 Arrangements for Production Organisational lead LDF Manager Political management Executive Member with responsibility for
Planning Internal resources Planning Policy team
GIS Development Team Presentation Unit
External resources Printing and Production selected by competitive tender.
Forms of consultation/engagement
N/A
ANNEX 1
- 20 -
Kingston Old Town SPD Role and Purpose To provide detailed planning guidance for the old town conservation area, supplementing policies in the Kingston Town Centre Area Action Plan. Status Supplementary Planning Document. Geographical Coverage Kingston Old Town Conservation Area Conformity With the Kingston Town Centre Area Action Plan Timetable Evidence gathering/ Preparation of draft SPD November 2007 Public participation on draft SPD November 2008 Adoption April 2009 Arrangements for Production Organisational Lead Conservation Manager Political Management Executive Member with responsibility for Planning Internal resources Conservation and Design Team
Development Control Team Planning Policy team Projects Team
External resources Consultants have prepared a character appraisal of the Conservation Area which will inform the SPD.
Forms of Consultation/ Engagement
In accordance with the SCI
ANNEX 1
- 21 -
Residential Design SPD Role and Purpose Guidance on the design of residential development and residential extensions. Will review and expand on the advice provided in the existing Residential Extensions SPG, to provide guidelines for the form and type that any proposed residential development should take in an area. This will seek to achieve a higher standard of design by helping to ensure that the best possible use is made of urban land whilst respecting the character and appearance of the surrounding area. Status Supplementary Planning Document. Geographical Coverage Borough wide. Conformity Must be in general conformity with the London Plan and the emerging core strategy, having regard to the community plan. Timetable Evidence gathering/ Preparation of draft SPD May 2009 Public participation on draft SPD September 2010 Adoption February 2011 Arrangements for Production Organisational Lead Design Manager Political Management Executive Member with responsibility for Planning Internal resources Conservation and Design Team
Development Control Team Planning Policy team
External resources Sub-Regional study on housing issues to be funded by the Southern region of ‘Urban Design London’.
Forms of Consultation/ Engagement
In accordance with the SCI
ANNEX 1
- 22 -
Planning Obligations SPD Role and Purpose To provide guidance on the requirements and mechanisms for infrastructure contributions, and related social, economic, environmental and cultural provision (including open space, transport, training and enterprise support provision, education and community facilities, safety and security features) through developments in the borough. Status Supplementary Planning Document. Geographical Coverage Borough- wide Conformity Must be in general conformity with the London Plan and the Core Strategy, and have regard to the Community Plan. Timetable Evidence gathering /Preparation of draft SPD May 2009 Public participation on draft SPD September 2010 Adoption February 2011 Arrangements for Production Organisational Lead Planning Projects Manager Political Management Executive Member with responsibility for
Planning Internal resources Projects Team
Planning Policy team Legal Services
External resources None Forms of Consultation/Engagement In accordance with the SCI
ANNEX 2
- 23 -
Glossary (note: terms in italics are explained elsewhere in the glossary) The Act: the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 Annual Monitoring Report (AMR): part of the Local Development Framework, the annual monitoring report will assess the implementation of the Local Development Scheme and the extent to which policies in the Local Development Documents are being successfully implemented. Area Action Plan (AAP): used to provide a planning framework for areas of change and areas of conservation. Area Action Plans will have the status of Development Plan Documents. Community Plan: prepared as a requirement of the Local Government Act 2000, it sets out vision for Kingston based on a community planning process. It was produced by the Kingston Community Leadership Forum; a partnership of organisations representing all sectors of the Kingston Community. Go to http://www.kingston.gov.uk/community_planning Core Strategy: sets out the long-term spatial vision for the local planning authority area, strategic objectives, and strategic policies to deliver that vision. The Core Strategy will have the status of a Development Plan Document. Development Plan: in Kingston this consists of the Spatial Development Strategy for London (The London Plan), saved Unitary Development Plan policies, and Development Plan Documents within the Local Development Framework. Development Plan Documents (DPDs): spatial planning documents that are subject to independent examination, and together with the London Plan will form the development plan for the local authority area. Development Plan Documents can include Core Strategy, Site-specific Allocations of Land, and Area Action Plans (where needed). Other Development Plan Documents including generic Development Control Policies, can be produced. They will all be shown geographically on an adopted proposal map. Individual Development Plan Documents or parts of a document can be reviewed independently from other Development Plan Documents. Each Authority must set out the programme for preparing its Development Plan Documents in the Local Development Scheme. Examination: all Development Plan Documents and the Statement of Community Involvement are subject to independent examination by the Planning Inspectorate. This examination will test the ‘soundness’ of the document. Generic development control policies: these will be a suite of criteria-based policies which are required to ensure that developments within the area meet the spatial vision and objectives set out in the Core Strategy. These may be included in any Development Plan Document or may form a stand-alone document. Inspector’s Report: a report issued by the Inspector or Panel who conducted the Examination, setting out their conclusions on the matters raised and detailing amendments to be made to the document. The inspectors report is binding on the local planning authority.
ANNEX 2
- 24 -
Issues and options: produced during the early production stages of the preparation of Development Plan Documents and may be issued for consultation to meet the requirements of Regulation 25. Local Development Documents (LDDs): the collective term in the Act for Development Plan Documents, Supplementary Planning Documents, and the Statement of Community Involvement (SCI). Local Development Framework (LDF): The name of the portfolio of Local Development Documents. It consists of Development Plan Documents, Supplementary Planning Documents, a Statement of Community Involvement, the Local Development Scheme and Annual Monitoring Reports. Together these documents provide the framework for delivering spatial planning strategy for a local authority area and may also include local development orders and simplified planning zones. Local Development Scheme (LDS): sets out the programme for preparing Local Development Documents. This must be submitted to the Secretary of State for approval within six months of the commencement of the Act. London Plan: the Spatial Development Strategy for London. It provides a strategic framework for Borough’s Local Development Framework. It has the status of a development plan under the Act. The Kingston Local Development Framework is required to generally conform to the London Plan. Planning Policy Statement (PPS): national planning policy produced by the Government. Previously known as Planning Policy Guidance notes (PPGs) they set out the Government’s spatial planning policies for England. Preferred options document: produced as part of the preparation of a Development Plan Document and is issued for formal public participation as required by Regulation 26. Proposals map: the adopted proposals map illustrates on a base map (reproduced from, or based upon a map base to registered scale) all the policies and proposals contained in Development Plan Documents, together with any saved policies. To be revised as each new Development Plan Document is adopted and it should always reflect the up-to-date planning strategy for the area. Proposals for changes to the adopted proposals map accompany submitted development plan documents in the form of a submission proposals map. The Regulations: Town and Country Planning (Local Development) (England) Regulations 2004, and the Town and Country Planning (Transitional Arrangements) Regulations 2004. Saved Policies: policies in the Unitary Development Plan which remain effective. Site Specific Allocations: allocations of sites for specific or mixed uses or development to be contained in Development Plan Documents. Policies will identify any specific requirements for individual proposals. Spatial Development Plan for London the Spatial Development Strategy for London provides a strategic framework for Boroughs’ Local Development Framework. It has the status of a development plan under the Act. The Kingston Local Development Framework is required to generally conform to the London Plan.
ANNEX 2
- 25 -
Statement of Community Involvement (SCI): sets out the standards which the Council will achieve with regard to involving the community in the preparation of Local Development Documents and development control decisions. The Statement of Community Involvement is not a Development Plan Document but is subject to independent examination. Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA): a generic term used to describe environmental assessment as applied to policies, plans and programmes. The European ‘SEA Directive’ (2001/42/EC) requires a formal ‘environmental assessment of certain plans and programmes, including those in the field of planning and land use’. Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) provide supplementary information in respect of the policies in Development Plan Documents. They do not form part of the development plan and are not subject to independent examination. Sustainability Appraisal (SA): tool for appraising policies to ensure they reflect sustainable development objectives (i.e. social, environmental and economic factors) and required in the Act to be undertaken for all Local Development Documents. It encompasses all the requirements of the SEA (see above). Unitary Development Plan (UDP): A borough wide statutory development plan, setting out the Council’s policies for the development and use of land. This will be replaced by the Local Development Framework.
APPENDIX J Executive, 20th March 2007
SAVING UNITARY DEVELOPMENT PLAN POLICIES Report by the Head of Planning and Development Executive Member for Transport, Planning and Regeneration
Purpose The purpose of this report is to seek the agreement of the Executive for an application to the Secretary of State to save certain Unitary Development Plan policies beyond September 2007.
Action proposed by the Executive Member for: Transport, Planning and Regeneration The Executive is requested to agree the schedules at annexes 2 and 3 as the basis of an application to the Secretary of State to issue a direction to save UDP policies beyond September 2007. Reason for action proposed To enable an application to be made to the Secretary of State to save certain UDP policies that are only otherwise saved to September 2007.
BACKGROUND 1. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 gave local planning
authorities the statutory powers to commence the preparation of Local Development Frameworks (LDF’s). LDF’s will replace old style Development Plans (in RBK’s case, the Unitary Development Plan). Subsequently, some authorities have chosen to adopt existing Development Plans that were nearing completion, whilst others commenced work immediately on their new LDF.
2. The Council adopted its Unitary Development Plan First Alteration in
August 2005. It was a partial review, i.e. some policies changed from the original 1998 UDP, but others remained untouched. Those policies that were reviewed are automatically saved until August 2008, 3 years from the date of adoption. Those that weren’t reviewed (hereafter named “old policies”) are automatically saved until September 2007, 3 years after the commencement of the Planning and Compulsory Act 2004. A request can be made of the Secretary of State to save policies beyond the relevant three year period. The deadline is 1st April 2007 for policies due to ‘expire’ in September 2007.
CRITERIA FOR SAVING POLICIES 3. Part of the rationale for the new planning system was to slim down plans,
avoiding unnecessary policies such as those that are not or rarely used, those that duplicate others or those which simply shouldn’t belong in a
J2
spatial plan. The Council must therefore justify the policies it wishes to save. A Department of Communities and Local Government (DCLG) protocol sets out the criteria against which saved policies will be assessed:
(i) where appropriate, there is a clear central strategy; (ii) policies have regard to the Community Strategy for the area; (iii) policies are in general conformity with the regional spatial strategy or spatial
development strategy; (iv) policies are in conformity with the core strategy development plan document
(where the core strategy has been adopted); (v) there are effective policies for any parts of the authority’s area where significant
change in the use or development of land or conservation of the area is envisaged; and
(vi) policies are necessary and do not merely repeat national or regional policy.
5. In addition, the government will also have particular regard to:
o Policies that support the delivery of housing, including unimplemented site allocations, up to date affordable housing policies, policies relating to the infrastructure necessary to support housing;
o Policies on Green Belt general extent in structure plans and detailed boundaries in
local plans/UDPs;
o Policies that support economic development and regeneration, including policies for retailing and town centres;
o Polices for waste management, including unimplemented site allocations;
o Policies that promote renewable energy; reduce impact on climate change; and
safeguard water resources.
6. Applications to the Secretary of State to save old policies must be submitted by April 1st 2007. The application must comprise two lists:
• those saved policies the Council wishes to extend beyond the 3
years saved period, with reasons; and
• those saved policies the Council does not wish to see saved beyond the 3 years saved period, with reasons.
7. A full analysis has been undertaken of all the old policies (listed at Annex
1). It is recommended that the Secretary of State be asked to save a significant majority, for the reasons set out in Annex 2 (Annex 2 is not included with the agenda due to its size (91 pages), but is available on the website at http://www.kingston.gov.uk/information/your_council/committeeminutes or from the planning policy team (020 8547 5302, email: planningpolicy@rbk.kingston.gov.uk ). However, there are a number of polices which do not meet some or all of the criteria and which it is not
J3
necessary to be saved further, for reasons set out in Annex 3. The summary table below lists those policies and the reason for deletion.
Policy title Reason for recommending deletion H4: Provision of Residential Accommodation Above Ground Floor
The issue is covered by other UDP policies as well as national and London Plan policies.
H8: Separate Garage Blocks
The issues are covered by other UDP policies on residential amenity.
H11: Mobility Housing Superseded by a more stringent and beneficial London Plan policy H12: Wheelchair Housing Superseded by a more stringent and beneficial London Plan policy RL5: Enhanced Use of Existing Leisure Facilities
This policy is unnecessary as it duplicates policies STR8 Diversifying leisure facilities, MW7 Noise, T1 Transport Safety, T21 New Development and on-street parking
RL6: Allotments
This policy is unnecessary as it duplicates other open space policies that protect allotments.
STR22: Townscape Strategy
Not a strategic policy. Townscape addressed by other policies.
STR23: Accessibility to and within the Town Centre
This issue is covered by other UDP policies: Policies STR13 (A sustainable transport strategy); KTC14 (Implementation of townscape strategy); KTC24 (Pedestrian network) and KTC27 (Inner area of parking restriction).
KTC6: Restriction of Open Air Operations
The policy is unnecessary as the circumstances in which it would be used would never arise.
KTC10: The Central Library
The policy is unhelpful as written and the issue is covered by Policy KTC9 (provision of leisure, recreational, cultural and entertainment facilities).
KTC15: Building Heights Design in the town centre is covered by KTC13. A blanket approach to building heights can prevent good design and interesting townscape.
KTC16: Riverside Walks The public riverside walk has now been implemented. Policy KTC24 (Pedestrian network) adequately addresses other objectives of the policy.
KTC17: Design of Pedestrian Ways
This policy is unnecessary as Policy BE22 (pedestrian environment deals with pedestrian routes and areas. Policy BE15 (Safety and Lighting of Public Areas) is also relevant ensuring that crime and safety is taken into account in design.
KTC18: Width of New Buildings
Policy KTC13 adequately covers design. Conservation Area policies will also apply in the Kingston Old Town conservation area.
KTC19: Frontage Lines Policy KTC13 adequately covers design. KTC20: Plot Ratios Policy KTC13 adequately covers design and is less prescriptive
allowing good design that makes best use of land. KTC21: Design of Multi-Storey Car Parks
The original purpose of this policy was to ensure good design of proposed interceptor car parks for Kingston town centre. These have now been built. Certain criteria in the policy are also obsolete (e.g. a well designed car park need not be screened such as Seven Kings award winning car park).
KTC22: Bus Priority Measures
This policy is unnecessary duplication of Policy T9 (Bus Priority Measures) in the Transport Chapter.
DC6: Pedestrian Environment
This policy duplicates Policy T14 Pedestrian Network which is a much more comprehensive policy.
TOL2: Consolidation of Retail Area (in Tolworth District Centre)
This policy duplicates Policy DC1 (New retail floorspace) which seeks to consolidate and enhance the defined retail areas in all the district centres.
Proposal site PS30: Albany Park Sailing Base,
This proposal site (Albany Park Sailing base) is council owned property already being used for river based community/leisure, and the council
J4
Policy title Reason for recommending deletion Lower Ham Road, Kingston
has no plans for the use of this site to change in the future. It is therefore unnecessary for the site to be a proposal site allocation in the UDP. Any future changes to the site would be controlled by the saved UDP policies.
NEXT STAGES 8. A second application to the Secretary of State will need to be made in February/March
2008 which will deal with those UDP policies that were subject to the partial review of the UDP and adopted in August 2005 – the UDP First Alteration.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS 9. The policies have been analysed to ensure that those recommended for deletion are
not required and therefore unnecessary. Assuming the application to the Secretary of State is successful there will be no discernable negative environmental implications. If the Secretary of State decides not to save certain policies that the Council wishes to save then the potential consequences will be assessed accordingly.
RISK ASSESSMENT 10. If some or all of the old policies are not saved for whatever reason, there may be a
‘policy vacuum’ until the LDF Core Strategy and DC policies are adopted. However, due to the overlapping nature of many of the policies within the UDP, there will be a degree of protection given by the ‘new’ policies that were reviewed through the UDP Alteration process. It is unlikely that the Secretary of State will refuse an application to save the policies, provided a robust justification is made for each. However, in these circumstances, the implications will be assessed and proposed mitigating measures reported back to the Executive in the appropriate way.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 11. There are no direct financial implications arising from the application to save UDP
policies. NETWORK IMPLICATIONS 12. There are no foreseeable network implications arising from the application to save
UDP policies. Background papers: held by Daniel Hawes, 020 8547 5355; e-mail: daniel.hawes@rbk.Kingston,gov.uk
• Unitary Development Plan First Alteration • Royal Borough of Kingston Community Plan • London Plan (Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London) • PPS12: Local Development Frameworks
J5
ANNEX 1
List of UDP policies that were not reviewed during the first alteration. These policies are the subject of the application to the Secretary of State to save or delete. Chapter number
Chapter / policy title Propose to save or delete
3. Housing and the Residential Environment
STR3 Housing Need Save H1 Protection of Residential Amenities Save H2 Residential and Other Uses in Residential Areas Save H3 Change from Residential Use Save H4 Provision of Residential Accommodation Above
Ground Floor Delete
H7 Residential Conversions and Houses in Multiple Occupation
Save
H8 Separate Garage Blocks Delete H10 Sheltered Housing for Elderly People and People with
Disabilities Save
H11 Mobility Housing Delete H12 Wheelchair Housing Delete H13 Conversion of Large Houses to Nursing Homes, etc. Save H14 Hostels for Single People Save 4. Economy and Employment E4 Relocation of Existing Employment Uses Outside
Industrial / Warehouse / Business Areas Save
E5 Hazardous Processes Save E6 Range of Unit Sizes
Save
5. Shopping S4 Retention of Shops Outside Kingston Town Centre
and the District and Local Shopping Centres Save
S5 Alternative Use of Shops Outside Kingston Town Centre, District and Local Shopping Centres
Save
S6 New Small Shops Outside Centres Save S7 Vehicle Sales etc. Save S8 Takeaway Food Shops, Restaurants etc. Save S9 Outdoor Markets Save
6. Built Environment STR6 Conserving and Enhancing the Built Environment Save BE1 Strategic Areas of Special Character and the
Protection of Key Views Save
BE2 Local Areas of Special Character Save BE3 Development in Conservation Areas Save BE4 Demolition of Buildings in Conservation Areas Save BE5 Demolition of Listed Buildings Save BE6 Works Affecting the Character of Listed Buildings Save BE7 Change of Use of Listed Buildings Save
J6
Chapter number
Chapter / policy title Propose to save or delete
BE10 Grass Verges Save BE11 Design of New Buildings and Extensions Save BE12 Layout and Amenity of Buildings and Extensions Save BE13 Location of Building Plant Save BE14 Height of Buildings Save BE15 Safety and Lighting of Public Areas Save BE16 Design of New Shopfronts Save BE19 Areas of Archaeological Significance Save BE20 Ancient Monuments Save BE22 Pedestrian Environment Save BE23 Art in New Development Save 7. Open Environment OL1 The Green Belt Save OL2 Reuse of Buildings in the Green Belt Save OL3 Agriculture in the Green Belt Save OL4 Metropolitan Open Land Save OL5 New Buildings in the Green Belt and Metropolitan
Open Land Save
OL12 Stables, Riding Schools and Other Similar Establishments
Save
OL17 The River and Water Environment Save OL18 Flooding Save
8. Recreation and Leisure
STR8 Diversifying Leisure Facilities Save RL3 Retention or Replacement of Indoor Leisure Facilities Save RL4 Dual Use of Education and Community Facilities for
Leisure Purposes Save
RL5 Enhanced Use of Existing Leisure Facilities Delete RL6 Allotments Delete RL7 Children’s Play Provision Save RL8 New Hotel Accommodation Save RL9 Tourism and Visitors Save
9. Community Services STR9 Community Services Save CS1 New Community Facilities and the Extension of
Existing Community Facilities Save
CS2 Facilities for Care in the Community Save CS3 Adult Education Facilities and Youth Centres Save CS4 Customer Facilities and Conveniences Save CS5 Gypsies and Travellers Save 10. Minerals, Waste, Energy and Pollution Control
MW7 Noise Save 11. Transport T1 Transport Safety Save T2 Restriction on Delivery Hours Save
J7
Chapter number
Chapter / policy title Propose to save or delete
T4 Management and Improvement of the Secondary Road Network
Save
T5 Local Distributor Roads Save T7 Traffic Calming in New Developments Save T8 Lorry Routes Save T9 Bus Priority Measures Save T11 Public Transport Accessibility Save T14 Pedestrian Network Save T16 Overnight Lorry Parking Save T26 Temporary Car Parking Save T28 Off-Street Servicing and Parking Save T29 Use of Shopping Forecourts Save
12. Kingston Town Centre
STR22 Townscape Strategy Delete STR23 Accessibility to and within the Town Centre Delete KTC1 Shopping Provision in Kingston Town Centre Save KTC3 Small Shop Units Save KTC4 Markets Save KTC6 Restriction of Open Air Operations Delete KTC7 Location of Arts and Craft Workshops Save KTC10 The Central Library Delete KTC11 Open Space in Kingston Town Centre Save KTC12 Provision of Hotel and Other Visitor Facilities Save KTC13 Design Standards Save KTC15 Building Heights Delete KTC16 Riverside Walks Delete KTC17 Design of Pedestrian Ways Delete KTC18 Width of New Buildings Delete KTC19 Frontage Lines Delete KTC20 Plot Ratios Delete KTC21 Design of Multi-Storey Car Parks Delete KTC22 Bus Priority Measures Delete KTC24 Pedestrian Network Save KTC25 Servicing Facilities in the Pedestrian Priority Area Save
13. District Centres DC1 New Retail Floorspace Save DC4 Areas of Mixed Use Save DC6 Pedestrian Environment Delete NM2 Rear Service Roads Save NM3 Design and Scale of New Development Save SUR3 Design and Scale of New Development Save SUR4 Rear Service Roads Save TOL2 Consolidation of Retail Area Delete TOL3 Design and Scale of New Development Save TOL4 Broadoaks Rear Service Road Save 14. Resources and Implementation RES1 Control of Development, Site Assembly, etc. Save RES2 Planning Conditions and Agreements Save
J8
Chapter number
Chapter / policy title Propose to save or delete
RES4 Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) Save RES5 Temporary Planning Permissions and Renewal of
Expired Permissions Save
RES6 Provision of Adequate Infrastructure Save RES7 Monitoring Save RES8 Community Benefit Save 15. Proposal Sites PS1 Former Power Station, Skerne Road/Canbury
Gardens Save
PS10 North West Corner of Fife Road Save PS11 107-163 Clarence Street/Station Buildings, Fife Road
and 58-66 Fife Road/30 Castle Street and Former Empire Works
Save
PS12 55-83a Clarence Street, 4-46 Fife Road Save PS17 Guildhall/Bath Passage/St James’ Road Save PS19 Surrey County Hall, Penrhyn Road Save PS27 Rex Motors, 196-198 Cambridge Road, Kingston Save PS30 Albany Park Sailing Base, Lower Ham Road, Kingston Delete PS32 Kingston University, Kingston Hill Save PS40 Tolworth Main Allotments, Surbiton Save PS43 Land at Kingston Road / Jubilee Way, Tolworth Save PS44 Tolworth Court and Farm Lands, Tolworth Save PS45 King Edward’s Playing Field and Land North of
Clayton Road, Hook Save
PS47 Churchfields Allotments, Church Lane, Chessington Save PS50 Chessington World of Adventures Save
J9
ANNEX 2
Schedule of UDP policies to be saved At 91 pages this schedule is too large to be printed with the Executive meeting agenda. Those wishing to see the justification for policies to be saved can access the document as part of the agenda for the Executive meeting on 20th March 2007 via the following link: http://www.kingston.gov.uk/information/your_council/committeeminutes Alternatively please contact the Planning Policy Team on 020 8547 5302 and they can provide a copy.
J10
ANNEX 3
Schedule of UDP policies proposed to be deleted
UDP First Alteration – policies to be deleted with reasons
Policy Reasons for deletion
Provision of Residential Accommodation Above Ground Floor H4 IN ORDER TO INCREASE THE PROVISION OF RESIDENTIAL ACCOMMODATION IN KINGSTON TOWN CENTRE, THE DISTRICT AND LOCAL SHOPPING CENTRES, THE COUNCIL WILL:- 1. IN KINGSTON TOWN CENTRE GIVE PRIORITY TO RESIDENTIAL USE OF UPPER FLOORS IN ACCORDANCE WITH POLICY KTC5; 2. IN THE DISTRICT AND LOCAL SHOPPING CENTRES GIVE PRIORITY, SUBJECT TO AMENITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS, TO THE RESIDENTIAL USE OF UPPER FLOORS IN SHOPPING STREETS; 3. GIVE PLANNING PERMISSION FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON APPROPRIATE SITES IN KINGSTON TOWN CENTRE AND THE DISTRICT CENTRES.
This policy gives priority to residential uses above ground floors. In fact PPS6 gives equal encouragement to offices above ground floors stating “residential or office development should be encouraged as appropriate uses above ground floor retail, leisure or other facilities within centres.” Other UDP policies encourage (rather than give priority to) residential accommodation above shops in Kingston town centre (Policy KTC5), in New Malden (Policy NM1) and Surbiton (Policy SUR) and are therefore more in line with national policy. The third point in the policy about giving planning permission for residential development in the town and district centres is also considered irrelevant in light of PPS6 and the London Plan which encourage residential development in town centres.
Separate Garage Blocks H8 WITHIN RESIDENTIAL AREAS THE DEVELOPMENT OF GARAGE BLOCKS SEPARATE FROM RESIDENTIAL UNITS WILL NOT BE PERMITTED UNLESS THEY FORM PART OF, AND ARE TO BE USED SOLELY BY THE OCCUPIERS OF AN ASSOCIATED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. THE LOSS OF EXISTING GARAGES AND OFF-STREET PARKING SERVING A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WILL BE RESISTED, ESPECIALLY WHERE ON-STREET PARKING IS WELL UTILISED.
The reason for this policy is twofold; firstly, to prevent the development of independent blocks of lock-up garages within residential areas because of loss of privacy, security and amenity; and secondly, to resist the loss of off-street parking where this would create on-street parking problems. The first issue is adequately covered by Policy H1: (protection of residential amenities) which apply to all development stating that the Council will have regard to residential amenities in terms of noise, disturbance, privacy, safety, outlook and daylight. Policy BE15 (safety and lighting) is also relevant. The second issue (concern over on-street parking) is covered by Policy T21 (New development and on-street parking) which says that “planning permission will not be granted for development that would result in an increase in on-street parking where it would adversely affect traffic flows, bus movement, road safety, the amenities of local residents or the local environment unless a range of measures is included as part of the development which would satisfactorily prevent any further increase in on-street parking.” The concerns over the issues raised in Policy H8 are therefore adequately covered by other UDP policies.
Mobility Housing H11 THE COUNCIL WILL SEEK TO NEGOTIATE, WHERE IT IS APPROPRIATE, ELEMENTS OF MOBILITY HOUSING AS PART OF NEW DEVELOPMENT ON
Mobility housing is an outdated concept. The Council is currently applying London Plan Policy 3A.4 which requires 100% of new homes throughout London to be built to Lifetime Homes Standards.
J11
UDP First Alteration – policies to be deleted with reasons
Policy Reasons for deletion
SUITABLE SITES. Wheelchair Housing H12 IN DEVELOPMENTS OF 20 OR MORE DWELLING UNITS ON SUITABLE SITES, THE COUNCIL WILL SEEK TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE DEVELOPER FOR AN APPROPRIATE PROPORTION OF THE UNITS, CONSISTENT WITH THE ESTABLISHED NEED IN THE BOROUGH, TO BE CONSTRUCTED TO WHEELCHAIR HOUSING SPECIFICATIONS.
The issue of wheelchair housing is covered by the London Plan Policy 3A.4 (Housing Choice) which requires 10% of new housing is designed to be wheelchair accessible or easily adaptable for residents who are wheelchair users.
Enhanced Use of Existing Leisure Facilities RL5 PROPOSALS WHICH ENABLE EXISTING FACILITIES TO BE MORE INTENSIVELY USED WILL BE ENCOURAGED AND WILL NORMALLY BE GRANTED PERMISSION PROVIDED THAT:- (A) EXCESSIVE NOISE OR DISTURBANCE TO LOCAL RESIDENTS DOES NOT OCCUR; AND (B) TRAFFIC CONDITIONS AND ON-STREET CAR PARKING ARE NOT ADVERSELY AFFECTED.
This policy is unnecessary as it duplicates policies STR8 Diversifying leisure facilities, MW7 Noise T1 Transport Safety, T21 New Development and on-street parking,
Allotments RL6 THE COUNCIL WILL NOT NORMALLY GRANT PERMISSION FOR DEVELOPMENT WHICH WILL RESULT IN THE LOSS OF ALLOTMENT LAND. HOWEVER, WHERE TENANCY RATES ARE LOW AND NOT EXPECTED TO INCREASE AND THE CONDITION OF PLOTS IS POOR, THE COUNCIL WILL CONSIDER: 1. FIRSTLY, OTHER APPROPRIATE OPEN SPACE USES; 2. SECONDLY, THE PROVISION OF INDOOR RECREATIONAL OR COMMUNITY FACILITIES; AND 3. FINALLY, OTHER DEVELOPMENT SUBJECT TO OTHER POLICIES IN THE PLAN.
This policy is unnecessary as it duplicates other open space policies. Allotments are protected through Policies OL1 (Green Belt), OL4 (Metropolitan Open Land), OL6 (Protection of other open land) and OL8 (Appearance and underuse of open land). PPG17’s definition of open space includes allotments (Annex para2 (vii)) ensuring that the principles of national guidance can be applied at the local level. Allotments are also controlled by statutory legislation, in particular section 8 of the 1925 Allotments Act provides that the Secretary of State’s consent is required for the disposal of land by a local authority which they have purchased or appropriated for use as allotments, if the propose to sell the land or appropriate it for another use.
Townscape Strategy STR22 A TOWNSCAPE STRATEGY (AS SHOWN ON MAPS KTC1a AND KTC1b) WILL BE IMPLEMENTED THROUGHOUT THE TOWN CENTRE TO FULLY INTEGRATE THE DESIGN OF BUILDINGS WITH THE STREETS, PATHS AND SPACES OF THE CENTRE. THE MAIN COMPONENTS OF THIS WILL BE: (A) THE DESIRABILITY OF PRESERVING OR ENHANCING THE CHARACTER AND APPEARANCE OF THE TOWN CENTRE, ITS CONSERVATION AREAS AND THE PRESERVATION OR ENHANCEMENT OF THE
The townscape strategy policy is not really a strategic policy. The issue of townscape in the town centre is covered by Policy KTC14 (Implementation of townscape strategy). Policy KTC13 (Design Standards) is also relevant. The Part 1 strategic policies that relate to Kingston town centre (STR 21, 22 and 23) will be replaced as part of the Kingston Town centre area action plan because they are effectively out of date. Other Part 1 policies, in particular STR4 (Local Economy) and STR5 (Shopping and town centres) provide a more genuinely strategic framework for both the forthcoming area action plan and the detailed UDP policies that relate to the town centre (KTC policies).
J12
UDP First Alteration – policies to be deleted with reasons
Policy Reasons for deletion
RIVERSIDE; (B) THE ‘GREENING’ OF A NETWORK OF LANDSCAPED LINKS AND SPACES INCLUDING THE RIVERSIDE AND PEDESTRIAN AND VEHICULAR ROUTES INTO THE TOWN CENTRE (SEE ALSO KTC14); (C) WITHIN A GENERAL RESTRICTION OF THE HEIGHT OF NEW DEVELOPMENT, TO IDENTIFY SPECIFIC FOCAL POINTS FOR THE INCORPORATION OF LANDMARK FEATURES WHICH MAY COMPRISE LANDSCAPING, URBAN DESIGN FEATURES AND ARTISTIC ELEMENTS, OR A COMBINATION OF THESE.
Accessibility to and within the Town Centre STR23 THE COUNCIL WILL SEEK TO IMPROVE ACCESSIBILITY TO, AND WITHIN, THE TOWN CENTRE BY GIVING GREATER EMPHASIS TO THE NEEDS OF PUBLIC TRANSPORT USERS, PEDESTRIANS, CYCLISTS AND PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES. IN PARTICULAR THE COUNCIL HAS DEFINED A ZONE WITHIN THE TOWN CENTRE, AS SHOWN ON MAP KTC1(b), WHERE PRIORITY WILL BE GIVEN TO PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY CONSISTENT WITH ACCESSIBILITY BY PUBLIC TRANSPORT AND BICYCLE.
The Part 1 strategic policies that relate to Kingston town centre will be replaced as part of the Kingston Town centre area action plan. Other Part 1 policies provide a more genuinely strategic framework for both the forthcoming area action plan and the detailed UDP policies that relate to the town centre (KTC policies). Policy STR13 (A sustainable transport strategy) covers the same ground as STR23 in terms of promoting sustainable transport. Policies KTC14 (Implementation of townscape strategy), KTC24 (Pedestrian network) and KTC27 (Inner area of parking restriction) adequately cover the issues.
Restriction of Open Air Operations KTC6 THE USE OF LAND FOR OPEN-AIR OPERATIONS SUCH AS SCRAPYARDS, DEMOLITION CONTRACTORS AND CAR-BREAKERS WILL NOT NORMALLY BE PERMITTED; SUCH USES SHOULD NORMALLY BE LOCATED IN INDUSTRIAL AREAS OF THE BOROUGH.
This policy is not required because the circumstances in which it could be used would never arise. This policy seeks to protect the environmental quality of the town centre, but it is very specific to certain uses which are not viable in the town centre. Other policies protect the environment of the town centre.
The Central Library KTC10 THE CENTRAL LIBRARY WILL BE RATIONALISED AND/OR EXTENDED AS NECESSARY, ON ITS EXISTING SITE OR ELSEWHERE IN THE TOWN CENTRE, AS RESOURCES BECOME AVAILABLE.
This policy is unnecessary and offers nothing helpful in terms of planning. Policy KTC9 (Provision of leisure, recreational, cultural and entertainment facilities) would cover proposals for the town centre library.
Building Heights KTC15 (A) IN THE OLD TOWN CONSERVATION AREA, THE RIVERSIDE, AND IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS, NEW DEVELOPMENT SHOULD NORMALLY BE OF TWO OR THREE STOREYS. ELSEWHERE IN THE TOWN CENTRE NEW DEVELOPMENT OF THREE TO FIVE STOREYS WILL NORMALLY BE APPROPRIATE, AND IN THE VICINITY OF KINGSTON RAILWAY STATION NEW DEVELOPMENT OF BETWEEN FIVE AND SIX STOREYS WILL NORMALLY BE CONSIDERED
This policy is overly prescriptive. The important point is that design should relate to its context. The application of a blanket height restrictions does not encourage good design. Policy KTC13 Design Standards covers the issue.
J13
UDP First Alteration – policies to be deleted with reasons
Policy Reasons for deletion
APPROPRIATE. THESE RESPECTIVE AREAS ARE DEFINED ON MAP KTC2. (B) IN THE CASE OF INFILL DEVELOPMENT, THE HEIGHT WILL NORMALLY BE RESTRICTED TO THAT OF ADJACENT BUILDINGS. HOWEVER REGARD WILL BE HAD TO THE PROVISION OF MAP KTC2 WHERE THIS WILL PROVIDE INTEREST BY ALLOWING VARIATIONS OF PARAPET OR EAVES LEVEL WITHOUT CREATING AN UNACCEPTABLE PRECEDENT. Riverside Walks KTC16 THE COUNCIL WILL SECURE COMPLETION OF A PUBLIC RIVERSIDE WALK BETWEEN QUEENS PROMENADE AND CANBURY GARDENS INCLUDING A BRIDGE OVER THE HOGSMILL AND A CONTINUOUS PUBLIC WALKWAY ALONGSIDE THE HOGSMILL IN THE TOWN CENTRE. ADDITIONAL AND IMPROVED PEDESTRIAN LINKS TO THE RIVERSIDE WILL BE SOUGHT. REDEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS ADJOINING PROPOSED RIVERSIDE WALKWAYS SHOULD INCORPORATE PROPOSALS FOR THE WALK AND SHOULD INCORPORATE FUNCTIONAL, PHYSICAL AND VISUAL LINKS BETWEEN THE DEVELOPMENT AND THE WALK. (Cross reference Policies KTC17 and OL13).
The public riverside walk has now been implemented. Policy KTC24 (Pedestrian network) adequately addresses other objectives of the policy.
Design of Pedestrian Ways KTC17 THE COUNCIL WILL REQUIRE THE DESIGN OF NEW PEDESTRIAN WAYS AND IMPROVEMENT OF EXISTING ONES TO PROVIDE A SAFE ENVIRONMENT ACCESSIBLE TO ALL, WITH SYMPATHETIC PAVING, GOOD LIGHTING AND GOOD SIGHTLINES, AND TAKING OPPORTUNITIES TO IMPROVE ROUTES PROVIDED BY REDEVELOPMENT OF ADJACENT BUILDINGS. (Cross reference Policy BE22).
This policy is unnecessary as Policy BE22 (pedestrian environment deals with pedestrian routes and areas. Policy BE15 (Safety and Lighting of Public Areas) is also relevant ensuring that crime and safety is taken into account in design.
Width of New Buildings KTC18 NEW BUILDINGS WILL BE EXPECTED TO RESPECT THE WIDTH OF EXISTING FRONTAGES WHERE THEY ARE AN IMPORTANT FEATURE OF THE STREET SCENE, ESPECIALLY IN THE OLD TOWN CONSERVATION AREA AND THE RIVERSIDE AREA.
Policy KTC13 adequately covers design. Conservation Area policies will also apply in the Kingston Old Town conservation area.
J14
UDP First Alteration – policies to be deleted with reasons
Policy Reasons for deletion
Frontage Lines KTC19 NEW BUILDINGS WILL NORMALLY BE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN EXISTING FRONTAGE LINES OTHER THAN IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OUTLINED IN KTC14(D) AND FOR COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT SCHEMES WHERE IT MAY BE APPROPRIATE TO SET BACK BUILDINGS TO PROVIDE FOR TREE PLANTING, OPEN SPACE OR PAVEMENT WIDENING.
Policy KTC13 adequately covers design.
Plot Ratios KTC20 WITHIN THE TOWN CENTRE INSET AREA, PLOT RATIOS OF AROUND 1.75:1 WILL NORMALLY BE ACCEPTABLE. HOWEVER, THE COUNCIL WILL WISH TO SEE DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE APPROPRIATE IN SCALE TO THEIR LOCATION AND ON OCCASION THIS MAY RESULT IN A SOMEWHAT HIGHER OR LOWER PLOT RATIO THAN THAT STATED, WHEN THE VARIOUS FACTORS THAT AFFECT THE SITE HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.
Policy KTC13 adequately covers design and is less prescriptive allowing good design that makes best use of land.
Design of Multi-Storey Car Parks KTC21 NEW MULTI-STOREY CAR PARKS IN THE TOWN CENTRE SHOULD BE: (i) SCREENED BY OTHER BUILDINGS WHEREVER POSSIBLE; (ii) DESIGNED WITH FEATURES SUCH AS STAGGERING, AND VERTICAL ELEMENTS, WHERE APPROPRIATE; (iii) CLAD IN BRICK, RATHER THAN EXPOSED CONCRETE, ON ALL ELEVATIONS VISIBLE FROM THE STREET; (iv) DESIGNED TO INCORPORATE FEATURES WHICH ENHANCE PERSONAL SAFETY, INCLUDING ADEQUATE INTERNAL LIGHTING.
The original purpose of this policy was to ensure good design of proposed interceptor car parks for Kingston town centre. These have now been built. Certain criteria in the policy are also obsolete (e.g. a well designed car park need not be screened such as Seven Kings award winning car park). Policy KTC13 adequately covers design. Policy BE15 covers safety and security in design.
Bus Priority Measures KTC22 THE COUNCIL WILL SEEK OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE INTRODUCTION OF FURTHER BUS PRIORITY MEASURES AS PART OF ANY CHANGES TO THE TOWN CENTRE ROAD NETWORK, OR TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT MODIFICATIONS, IN THE CENTRE.
This policy is unnecessary duplication of Policy T9 (Bus Priority Measures) in the Transport Chapter.
Pedestrian Environment DC6
This policy duplicates Policy T14 Pedestrian Network which is a much more comprehensive policy.
J15
UDP First Alteration – policies to be deleted with reasons
Policy Reasons for deletion
WITHIN THE DISTRICT CENTRES THE COUNCIL WILL ENHANCE THE ENVIRONMENT FOR PEDESTRIANS BY UNDERTAKING APPROPRIATE MEASURES AND WILL REQUIRE DEVELOPMENTS TO MAINTAIN AND WHERE APPROPRIATE IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION, ACCESS AND SAFETY. Consolidation of Retail Area TOL2 RETAIL ACTIVITY IN TOLWORTH WILL BE CONSOLIDATED IN THE RETAIL AREA, AS INDICATED ON THE INSET MAP, WHERE EXTENSIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING PREMISES WILL NORMALLY BE PERMITTED.
This policy duplicates Policy DC1 (New retail floorspace) which seeks to consolidate and enhance the defined retail areas in all the district centres.
PS30: Albany Park Sailing Base, Lower Ham Road, Kingston Allocated for river based community/leisure
This proposal site (Albany Park Sailing base) is council owned property already being used for river based community/leisure, and the council has no plans for the use of this site to change in the future. It is therefore unnecessary for the site to be a proposal site allocation in the UDP. Any future changes to the site would be controlled by the saved UDP policies.
Ann
ex 1
: Ana
lysi
s of
UD
P po
licie
s pr
opos
ed to
be
save
d
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
Hou
sing
Nee
d ST
R3
THE
CO
UN
CIL
WIL
L SE
EK T
O E
NSU
RE
THA
T A
LL R
ESID
ENTS
OF
THE
BO
RO
UG
H E
NJO
Y A
ST
AN
DA
RD
OF
AC
CO
MM
OD
ATI
ON
TO
MEE
T TH
EIR
NEE
DS.
PA
RTI
CU
LAR
CO
NSI
DER
ATI
ON
W
ILL
NEE
D T
O B
E G
IVEN
TO
GR
OU
PS W
HIC
H
HA
VE S
PEC
IAL
NEE
DS
OR
LIM
ITED
AC
CES
S TO
TH
E H
OU
SIN
G M
AR
KET
INC
LUD
ING
PE
OPL
E W
ITH
DIS
AB
ILIT
IES,
ELD
ERLY
PE
OPL
E, S
TUD
ENTS
AN
D P
EOPL
E O
N L
OW
IN
CO
MES
.
N
/A
To
be
repl
aced
by
the
core
st
rate
gy
i) P
olic
y S
TR3
form
s pa
rt of
the
cent
ral s
trate
gy p
rovi
ded
by th
e P
art 1
pol
icie
s.
ii) T
his
polic
y ha
s re
gard
to th
e H
ousi
ng o
bjec
tives
of t
he
Cou
ncil’s
Com
mun
ity P
lan,
in p
artic
ular
the
prio
ritie
s to
mee
t the
ho
usin
g ne
eds
of K
ings
ton’
s di
vers
e co
mm
uniti
es a
nd m
axim
ise
the
supp
ly o
f hou
sing
. iii
) Pol
icy
STR
3 is
in g
ener
al c
onfo
rmity
with
Lon
don
Pla
n po
licie
s 3A
.4 (H
ousi
ng C
hoic
e), 3
A.7
(Affo
rdab
le h
ousi
ng
targ
ets)
, 3A
.8 (N
egot
iatin
g af
ford
able
hou
sing
in in
divi
dual
pr
ivat
e re
side
ntia
l and
mix
ed-u
se s
chem
es) a
nd 3
A.1
0 (S
peci
al
need
s an
d sp
ecia
list h
ousi
ng).
iv) N
/A
v) N
/A
vi) T
he p
olic
y do
es n
ot re
peat
hig
her p
olic
y an
d is
nec
essa
ry to
en
sure
that
mee
ting
hous
ing
need
is a
stra
tegi
c po
licy
in th
e U
DP
, pro
vidi
ng th
e co
ntex
t for
det
aile
d po
licie
s in
clud
ing
Pol
icy
H9
(Low
cos
t and
affo
rdab
le h
ousi
ng).
The
polic
y co
mpl
ies
with
th
e pr
inci
ples
of P
PS
3: H
ousi
ng w
hich
spe
cific
ally
requ
ires
LPAs
to
pla
n fo
r a m
ix o
f hou
sing
hav
ing
rega
rd to
the
spec
ific
requ
irem
ents
of c
erta
in g
roup
s (p
ara
21).
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
Res
iden
tial a
nd O
ther
Use
s in
Res
iden
tial A
reas
H2
WIT
HIN
RES
IDEN
TIA
L A
REA
S TH
E R
ESID
ENTI
AL
USE
OF
LAN
D W
ILL
NO
RM
ALL
Y B
E A
N A
CC
EPTA
BLE
USE
, AN
D T
HE
CO
UN
CIL
W
ILL
SEEK
TH
E R
EPLA
CEM
ENT
OF
ENVI
RO
NM
ENTA
LLY
HA
RM
FUL
USE
S W
ITH
A
RES
IDEN
TIA
L U
SE O
R O
THER
USE
C
OM
PATI
BLE
WIT
H T
HE
AR
EA W
HER
E TH
IS IS
C
ON
SIST
ENT
WIT
H O
THER
PLA
N P
OLI
CIE
S.
N
/A
Th
e is
sue
will
be d
ealt
with
in
eith
er th
e co
re s
trate
gy
or
deve
lopm
ent
cont
rol p
olic
y D
PD
i) Th
is p
olic
y su
ppor
ts a
nd e
xpan
ds o
n sa
ved
polic
y S
TR2
Res
iden
tial E
nviro
nmen
t whi
ch a
ims
to s
afeg
uard
and
enh
ance
th
e ch
arac
ter o
f res
iden
tial a
reas
. ii)
Thi
s po
licy
has
rega
rd to
the
over
all H
ousi
ng a
nd
Env
ironm
ent o
bjec
tives
of t
he C
ounc
il’s C
omm
unity
Pla
n.
iii) P
olic
y H
2 is
in g
ener
al c
onfo
rmity
with
Lon
don
Pla
n po
licie
s 3A
.1 a
nd 3
A.2
whi
ch re
quire
dev
elop
men
t pla
n po
licie
s to
m
axim
ise
the
prov
isio
n of
add
ition
al h
ousi
ng.
iv) N
/A
v) N
/A
vi) T
his
polic
y is
nec
essa
ry in
the
Kin
gsto
n co
ntex
t whe
re
resi
dent
ial a
reas
are
an
impo
rtant
sou
rce
of n
ew h
ousi
ng
prov
ided
thro
ugh
rede
velo
pmen
t. It
is a
lso
cons
ider
ed im
porta
nt
to e
xpre
ssly
sta
te th
e C
ounc
il’s in
tent
ion
to re
plac
e ha
rmfu
l use
s w
ith re
side
ntia
l or o
ther
ben
ign
uses
in re
side
ntia
l are
as.
C
hang
e fr
om R
esid
entia
l Use
H
3 U
NLE
SS T
HER
E A
RE
EXC
EPTI
ON
AL
CIR
CU
MST
AN
CES
, TH
E C
OU
NC
IL W
ILL
RES
IST
THE
LOSS
OF
RES
IDEN
TIA
L LA
ND
AN
D
BU
ILD
ING
S TO
OTH
ER U
SES.
N
/A
To
be
repl
aced
in
the
deve
lopm
ent
cont
rol D
PD
i) Th
is p
olic
y he
lps
deliv
er p
olic
y S
TR1
Hou
sing
Sup
ply
whi
ch
seek
s to
incr
ease
the
supp
ly o
f hou
sing
in th
e bo
roug
h.
ii) T
his
polic
y ha
s re
gard
to th
e C
omm
unity
Pla
n H
ousi
ng
obje
ctiv
e to
max
imis
e th
e su
pply
of h
ousi
ng.
iii) P
olic
y H
2 is
in g
ener
al c
onfo
rmity
with
Lon
don
Pla
n po
licie
s 3A
.1an
d 3A
.2 w
hich
see
k th
e m
axim
um p
rovi
sion
of a
dditi
onal
ho
usin
g an
d po
licy
3A.1
2 w
hich
requ
ires
boro
ughs
to h
ave
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
polic
ies
to p
reve
nt th
e lo
ss o
f hou
sing
. iv
) N/A
v)
N/A
vi
) Thi
s po
licy
does
not
repe
at h
ighe
r pol
icy
and
is n
eces
sary
to
ensu
re th
e pr
otec
tion
of re
side
ntia
l lan
d an
d bu
ildin
gs.
In s
o do
ing
it su
ppor
ts th
e go
vern
men
t’s s
trate
gic
obje
ctiv
es fo
r ho
usin
g se
t out
in P
PS
3: H
ousi
ng.
R
esid
entia
l Con
vers
ions
and
Hou
ses
in M
ultip
le
Occ
upat
ion
H7
THE
CO
NVE
RSI
ON
OF
LAR
GE
HO
USE
S IN
TO
SMA
LLER
UN
ITS
OR
MU
LTIP
LE O
CC
UPA
TIO
N
WIL
L B
E A
LLO
WED
PR
OVI
DED
TH
AT
NO
SI
GN
IFIC
AN
T H
AR
M IS
CA
USE
D T
O:
A.
THE
CH
AR
AC
TER
AN
D A
PPEA
RA
NC
E O
F TH
E A
REA
; B
. TH
E A
MEN
ITIE
S O
F N
EAR
BY
RES
IDEN
TS;
C.
THE
FREE
FLO
W O
F TR
AFF
IC A
ND
TH
E SA
FETY
OF
HIG
HW
AY
USE
RS.
TH
E C
ON
VER
SIO
N O
F O
THER
BU
ILD
ING
S W
ILL
BE
ALL
OW
ED S
UB
JEC
T TO
TH
E A
BO
VE
CR
ITER
IA. A
LA
RG
E H
OU
SE IS
DEF
INED
AS
A
DW
ELLI
NG
TH
AT
HA
S M
OR
E TH
AN
TH
REE
B
EDR
OO
MS
AN
D A
NET
FLO
OR
SPA
CE
OF
N
/A
To
be
repl
aced
by
the
deve
lopm
ent
cont
rol
polic
ies
DP
D
i) Th
is p
olic
y su
ppor
ts s
aved
pol
icy
STR
1 H
ousi
ng S
uppl
y in
that
it
allo
ws
for r
esid
entia
l con
vers
ions
and
HM
Os,
but
it a
lso
adds
he
lpfu
l crit
eria
to e
nsur
e th
at th
e ob
ject
ives
of S
TR2
(Res
iden
tial
Env
ironm
ent)
are
met
.
ii) T
his
polic
y ha
s re
gard
to th
e H
ousi
ng o
bjec
tives
of t
he
Cou
ncil’s
Com
mun
ity P
lan,
in p
artic
ular
the
prio
ritie
s to
mee
t the
ho
usin
g ne
eds
of K
ings
ton’
s di
vers
e co
mm
uniti
es a
nd m
axim
ise
the
supp
ly o
f hou
sing
. iii
) Pol
icy
H7
is in
gen
eral
con
form
ity w
ith L
ondo
n P
lan
polic
ies
3A.1
and
3A
.2 w
hich
requ
ire d
evel
opm
ent p
lan
polic
ies
to
max
imis
e th
e pr
ovis
ion
of a
dditi
onal
hou
sing
and
pol
icy
3A.1
0,
in p
artic
ular
par
agra
ph 3
.54
whi
ch re
cogn
ises
the
role
that
H
MO
s ca
n pl
ay in
pro
vidi
ng a
ccom
mod
atio
n fo
r tho
se w
ho
cann
ot a
cces
s so
cial
rent
ed o
r affo
rd ‘c
onve
ntio
nal’
mar
ket
hous
ing.
iv
) N/A
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
MO
RE
THA
N 1
16 S
Q M
(1,2
48 S
Q F
T) (B
ASE
D
ON
TH
E O
RIG
INA
L FL
OO
RSP
AC
E A
ND
TH
E N
UM
BER
OF
BED
RO
OM
S PR
IOR
TO
AN
Y EX
TEN
SIO
N).
v) N
/A
vi) T
his
polic
y is
con
sist
ent w
ith P
PS
1 w
hich
sta
tes
that
“p
lann
ing
polic
ies
shou
ld s
eek
to p
rote
ct a
nd e
nhan
ce th
e qu
ality
, cha
ract
er a
nd a
men
ity v
alue
of t
he c
ount
rysi
de a
nd
urba
n ar
ea a
s a
who
le”,
but i
t doe
s no
t rep
eat h
ighe
r pol
icy.
It i
s co
nsid
ered
nec
essa
ry b
ecau
se th
e sp
ecifi
c is
sues
ass
ocia
ted
with
con
vers
ions
into
sm
alle
r res
iden
tial u
nits
are
not
ade
quat
ely
cove
red
else
whe
re in
the
UD
P.
Ther
e ar
e oc
casi
ons
whe
n co
nver
sion
of l
arge
hou
ses
to s
mal
ler u
nits
or m
ultip
le
occu
patio
n w
ill be
to th
e de
trim
ent o
f the
cha
ract
er o
f the
are
a.
The
UD
P’s
gen
eric
des
ign
polic
y co
vers
new
bui
ldin
gs a
nd
exte
nsio
ns, w
ithou
t exp
ress
ly d
ealin
g w
ith c
onve
rsio
ns.
It is
al
so c
onsi
dere
d he
lpfu
l to
deal
with
the
impa
ct c
ause
d by
ext
ra
cars
ass
ocia
ted
with
the
deve
lopm
ent.
This
pol
icy
is ro
oted
in
evid
ence
: the
Res
iden
tial E
nviro
nmen
t and
Am
enity
Stu
dy 1
991.
Shel
tere
d H
ousi
ng fo
r Eld
erly
Peo
ple
and
Peop
le w
ith D
isab
ilitie
s H
10
THER
E W
ILL
BE
SUPP
OR
T FO
R S
CH
EMES
W
HIC
H P
RO
VID
E SH
ELTE
RED
RES
IDEN
TIA
L A
CC
OM
MO
DA
TIO
N F
OR
ELD
ERLY
PEO
PLE
AN
D P
EOPL
E W
ITH
DIS
AB
ILIT
IES
PRO
VID
ED
THER
E IS
A C
ON
TIN
UIN
G N
EED
FO
R S
UC
H
AC
CO
MM
OD
ATI
ON
AN
D P
RO
VID
ED T
HA
T TH
E PR
OPO
SAL:
- (A
) IS
CO
NVE
NIE
NTL
Y LO
CA
TED
TO
N
/A
To
be
repl
aced
by
the
deve
lopm
ent
cont
rol
polic
ies
DP
D
i) Th
is s
uppo
rts p
olic
y S
TR3
Hou
sing
Nee
d w
hich
see
ks to
pr
ovid
e ho
usin
g to
mee
t the
requ
irem
ents
of a
ll bo
roug
h re
side
nts,
giv
ing
parti
cula
r con
side
ratio
n to
thos
e w
ith s
peci
alis
t ne
eds.
ii)
Thi
s po
licy
has
rega
rd to
the
Hou
sing
obj
ectiv
es o
f the
C
ounc
il’s C
omm
unity
Pla
n, in
par
ticul
ar th
e pr
iorit
y to
mee
t the
ho
usin
g ne
eds
of K
ings
ton’
s di
vers
e co
mm
uniti
es.
iii) P
olic
y H
10 is
in g
ener
al c
onfo
rmity
with
Lon
don
Pla
n po
licie
s 3A
.4 (H
ousi
ng c
hoic
e) a
nd 3
A.1
0 (S
peci
al n
eeds
and
spe
cial
ist
hous
ing)
whi
ch re
quire
dev
elop
men
t pla
ns to
incl
ude
polic
es
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
PUB
LIC
TR
AN
SPO
RT
FAC
ILIT
IES;
(B
) IS
CO
NVE
NIE
NTL
Y LO
CA
TED
TO
LO
CA
L SH
OPS
, SER
VIC
ES A
ND
OTH
ER
CO
MM
UN
ITY
FAC
ILIT
IES;
(C
) PR
OVI
DES
A S
ATI
SFA
CTO
RY
ENVI
RO
NM
ENT
FOR
RES
IDEN
TS.
that
enc
oura
ge th
e pr
ovis
ion
of a
rang
e of
hou
sing
type
s ta
king
ac
coun
t of t
he re
quire
men
ts o
f diff
eren
t gro
ups
incl
udin
g th
ose
who
requ
ire s
peci
al n
eeds
or s
peci
alis
t hou
sing
. iv
) N/A
v)
N/A
vi
) Nat
iona
l and
regi
onal
pol
icy
enco
urag
e sp
ecia
list h
ousi
ng to
m
eet l
ocal
nee
ds, b
ut p
olic
y H
10 g
oes
furth
er m
akin
g a
link
with
ac
cess
ibili
ty to
pub
lic tr
ansp
ort a
nd fa
cilit
ies.
Th
e po
licy
supp
orts
the
deliv
ery
of h
ousi
ng in
Kin
gsto
n.
C
onve
rsio
n of
Lar
ge H
ouse
s to
Nur
sing
Hom
es,
etc.
H
13
THE
CO
NVE
RSI
ON
OF
LAR
GER
DET
AC
HED
H
OU
SES
OF
SIX
OR
MO
RE
BED
RO
OM
S FO
R
USE
AS
RES
IDEN
TIA
L C
AR
E H
OM
ES,
NU
RSI
NG
HO
MES
OR
HO
SPIT
ALS
, OR
R
ESID
ENTI
AL
INST
ITU
TIO
NS
(CLA
SS C
2) W
ILL
NO
RM
ALL
Y B
E A
CC
EPTA
BLE
PR
OVI
DED
TH
AT
THE
PRO
POSA
L:-
(A)
IS
CO
NVE
NIE
NTL
Y LO
CA
TED
TO
PU
BLI
C T
RA
NSP
OR
T FA
CIL
ITIE
S;
(B)
IS
CO
NVE
NIE
NTL
Y LO
CA
TED
TO
LO
CA
L SH
OPS
, SER
VIC
ES A
ND
OTH
ER
CO
MM
UN
ITY
FAC
ILIT
IES;
N
/A
To
be
addr
esse
d in
th
e de
velo
pmen
t co
ntro
l po
licie
s D
PD
i) Th
is p
olic
y he
lps
impl
emen
t pol
icie
s ST
R 2
Res
iden
tial
Env
ironm
ent a
nd S
TR3
Hou
sing
Nee
d by
pro
vidi
ng c
riter
ia
agai
nst w
hich
pla
nnin
g ap
plic
atio
ns to
con
vert
larg
e ho
uses
to
nurs
ing
hom
es a
nd s
imila
r dev
elop
men
ts c
an b
e ju
dged
.
ii) T
his
polic
y ha
s re
gard
to th
e H
ousi
ng o
bjec
tives
of t
he
Cou
ncil’s
Com
mun
ity P
lan,
in p
artic
ular
the
prio
rity
to m
eet t
he
hous
ing
need
s of
Kin
gsto
n’s
dive
rse
com
mun
ities
. iii
) Pol
icy
H13
is in
gen
eral
con
form
ity w
ith p
olic
y 3A
.4 (H
ousi
ng
Cho
ice)
and
3A
.10
(Spe
cial
nee
ds a
nd s
peci
alis
t hou
sing
) of t
he
Lond
on P
lan
whi
ch p
rom
ote
spec
ial n
eeds
hou
sing
, and
Pol
icy
4B.1
whi
ch s
eeks
to e
nsur
e th
at d
evel
opm
ents
resp
ect l
ocal
co
ntex
t, ch
arac
ter a
nd c
omm
uniti
es.
iv) N
/A
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
(C)
W
OU
LD N
OT
RES
ULT
IN A
N O
VER
-C
ON
CEN
TRA
TIO
N IN
AN
Y ST
REE
T W
ITH
IN
RES
IDEN
TIA
L A
REA
S; A
ND
(D
)
INVO
LVES
A B
UIL
DIN
G W
HIC
H IS
TO
O
LAR
GE
FOR
USE
AS
A S
ING
LE D
WEL
LIN
G,
AN
D W
HO
SE C
ON
VER
SIO
N W
OU
LD N
OT
DET
RA
CT
FRO
M T
HE
VISU
AL
CH
AR
AC
TER
OF
THE
AR
EA.
v) N
/A
vi) P
PS
3 re
quire
s LP
As
to p
lan
for a
mix
of h
ousi
ng h
avin
g re
gard
to th
e sp
ecifi
c re
quire
men
ts o
f cer
tain
gro
ups
incl
udin
g ol
der a
nd d
isab
led
peop
le (p
ara
21).
Pol
icy
H13
doe
s no
t re
peat
nat
iona
l pol
icy.
It a
ddre
sses
a lo
cal i
ssue
to a
void
an
over
-con
cent
ratio
n of
suc
h us
es, a
nd e
nsur
es th
at s
uch
deve
lopm
ents
are
sus
tain
able
in te
rms
of th
eir a
cces
sibi
lity.
Hos
tels
for S
ingl
e Pe
ople
H
14
PLA
NN
ING
APP
LIC
ATI
ON
S FO
R H
OST
ELS
AN
D
AC
CO
MM
OD
ATI
ON
FO
R S
ING
LE P
EOPL
E W
ILL
BE
CO
NSI
DER
ED IN
REL
ATI
ON
TO
:- (A
) TH
E C
HA
RA
CTE
R O
F TH
E A
REA
AN
D
IMPA
CT
ON
AD
JOIN
ING
RES
IDEN
TS;
(B)
PRO
XIM
ITY
TO G
OO
D P
UB
LIC
TR
AN
SPO
RT
FAC
ILIT
IES
AN
D T
O T
HE
MA
IN
RO
AD
NET
WO
RK
; (C
) PR
OXI
MIT
Y TO
DIS
TRIC
T C
ENTR
ES
AN
D/O
R P
LAC
E O
F EM
PLO
YMEN
T;
(D)
THE
CO
NTI
NU
ING
NEE
D F
OR
SU
CH
A
CC
OM
MO
DA
TIO
N.
N
/A
To
be
addr
esse
d in
a de
velo
pmen
t co
ntro
l po
licie
s D
PD
i) Th
is s
uppo
rts p
olic
y S
TR3
Hou
sing
Nee
d an
d S
TR13
whi
ch
seek
s to
redu
ce th
e ne
ed to
trav
el b
y ca
r. ii)
Thi
s po
licy
has
rega
rd to
the
Hou
sing
obj
ectiv
es o
f the
C
ounc
il’s C
omm
unity
Pla
n, in
par
ticul
ar th
e pr
iorit
y to
mee
t the
ho
usin
g ne
eds
of K
ings
ton’
s di
vers
e co
mm
uniti
es.
iii) P
olic
y H
14 is
in g
ener
al c
onfo
rmity
with
pol
icy
3A.4
(Hou
sing
C
hoic
e) a
nd 3
A.1
0 (S
peci
al n
eeds
and
spe
cial
ist h
ousi
ng) o
f the
Lo
ndon
Pla
n w
hich
requ
ire d
evel
opm
ent p
lans
to in
clud
e po
lices
th
at e
ncou
rage
the
prov
isio
n of
a ra
nge
of h
ousi
ng ty
pes
taki
ng
acco
unt o
f the
requ
irem
ents
of d
iffer
ent g
roup
s in
clud
ing
thos
e w
ho re
quire
spe
cial
nee
ds o
r spe
cial
ist h
ousi
ng.
iv) N
/A
V) N
/A
vi) T
he p
olic
y co
mpl
ies
with
PP
S 3
: Hou
sing
whi
ch re
quire
s LP
As
to p
lan
for a
mix
of h
ousi
ng (p
ara
21) h
avin
g pa
rticu
lar
rega
rd to
the
spec
ific
requ
irem
ents
of c
erta
in g
roup
s in
clud
ing
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
sing
le p
erso
n ho
useh
olds
(par
a 20
). H
owev
er it
doe
s no
t rep
eat
natio
nal p
olic
y. I
t add
s re
leva
nt c
riter
ia to
ens
ure
that
suc
h us
es
are
appr
opria
tely
loca
ted.
Th
is p
olic
y su
ppor
ts th
e de
liver
y of
hou
sing
in K
ings
ton.
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
Rel
ocat
ion
of E
xist
ing
Empl
oym
ent U
ses
Out
side
Indu
stria
l / W
areh
ouse
/ B
usin
ess
Are
as
E4
THE
REL
OC
ATI
ON
AN
D/O
R D
ISC
ON
TIN
UA
NC
E O
F EM
PLO
YMEN
T U
SES
PRES
ENTL
Y LO
CA
TED
OU
TSID
E TH
E IN
DU
STR
IAL/
W
AR
EHO
USE
/ BU
SIN
ESS
AR
EAS
(SEE
PO
LIC
Y E1
) WIL
L B
E SO
UG
HT
IF T
HE
OPE
RA
TIO
N IS
C
AU
SIN
G A
N U
NA
CC
EPTA
BLE
LEV
EL O
F D
ISTU
RB
AN
CE
OR
NU
ISA
NC
E IN
A
RES
IDEN
TIA
L A
REA
, MET
RO
POLI
TAN
OPE
N
LAN
D, G
REE
N B
ELT
OR
OTH
ER P
UB
LIC
OPE
N
SPA
CE,
OR
OTH
ERW
ISE
IS S
ERIO
USL
Y D
AM
AG
ING
EN
VIR
ON
MEN
TAL
CO
ND
ITIO
NS
IN
THE
SUR
RO
UN
DIN
G A
REA
.
N/
A
Cor
e st
rate
gy
and/
or
deve
lopm
ent
cont
rol
polic
ies
DP
D
i) P
art 1
pol
icie
s pr
ovid
e th
e ce
ntra
l stra
tegy
, see
king
to
enha
nce
resi
dent
ial a
reas
(STR
2) a
nd th
e op
en e
nviro
nmen
t (S
TR6)
. ii)
Pol
icy
E4
impl
emen
ts C
omm
unity
Stra
tegy
obj
ectiv
e; L
ocal
E
nviro
nmen
t - P
riorit
y 3.
“cle
an a
nd s
afe
stre
ets,
par
ks a
nd
com
mun
al s
pace
s” (p
15).
iii) P
olic
y E
4. is
con
sist
ent w
ith th
e ob
ject
ives
of L
ondo
n P
lan
Pol
icy
3A.2
6 w
hich
requ
ires
boro
ughs
to s
uppo
rt
neig
hbou
rhoo
d pl
ans,
and
the
follo
win
g Lo
ndon
Pla
n po
licie
s w
hich
see
k to
pro
tect
and
pro
mot
e th
e qu
ality
and
nat
ure
cons
erva
tion
valu
e of
Met
ropo
litan
Ope
n La
nd, g
reen
bel
t an
d ot
her p
ublic
ope
n sp
aces
: P
olic
y 3D
.7 R
ealis
ing
the
valu
e of
ope
n sp
ace
Pol
icy
3D.8
Gre
en b
elt
Pol
icy
3D.9
Met
ropo
litan
Ope
n La
nd
Pol
icy
3D.1
0 O
pen
spac
e pr
ovis
ion
in U
DP
’s
Pol
icy
3D.1
1 O
pen
Spa
ce s
trate
gies
P
olic
y 3D
.12
Bio
dive
rsity
and
Nat
ure
Con
serv
atio
n iv
) N/A
v)
N/A
vi
) The
UD
P g
ener
ally
see
ks to
pro
tect
em
ploy
men
t use
s fro
m
rede
velo
pmen
t to
othe
r use
s (P
olic
ies
E1
and
E1a
).
How
ever
, the
issu
e he
re is
one
of a
men
ity a
nd e
nviro
nmen
tal
cons
ider
atio
ns. I
n in
stan
ces
whe
re th
ere
may
be
exis
ting
activ
ities
whi
ch a
re e
nviro
nmen
tally
una
ccep
tabl
e, o
r
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
prop
osal
s w
hich
wou
ld b
e se
rious
ly d
etrim
enta
l to
amen
ity,
Pol
icy
E4
give
s th
e C
ounc
il th
e to
ol to
inte
rven
e ap
prop
riate
ly. T
he p
rovi
sion
s of
this
pol
icy
are
not r
epea
ted
in
high
er p
olic
y or
in a
ny o
ther
pol
icy
prop
osed
to b
e sa
ved
in
the
UD
P.
H
azar
dous
Pro
cess
es
E5
THE
CO
UN
CIL
WIL
L N
OT
PER
MIT
PR
OPO
SALS
W
HIC
H IN
VOLV
E TH
E U
SE, S
TOR
AG
E,
PRO
CES
SIN
G O
R P
RO
DU
CTI
ON
OF
EXPL
OSI
VE, I
NFL
AM
MA
BLE
, CO
RR
OSI
VE,
TOXI
C O
R O
THER
HA
RM
FUL
MA
TER
IALS
IN
SUFF
ICIE
NT
QU
AN
TITI
ES T
O B
ECO
ME
A
POTE
NTI
AL
SAFE
TY H
AZA
RD
OTH
ER T
HA
N
WH
ERE
THE
CO
UN
CIL
IS S
ATI
SFIE
D T
HA
T TH
E N
ATU
RE
OF
THE
HA
ZAR
D IS
OU
TWEI
GH
ED B
Y EC
ON
OM
IC, S
OC
IAL
OR
OTH
ER B
ENEF
ITS
TO
THE
CO
MM
UN
ITY.
NA
Dev
elop
men
t co
ntro
l po
licie
s D
PD
i) Th
e R
BK
Was
te S
trate
gy o
utlin
es th
e bo
roug
hs’ a
ppro
ach
to
man
agin
g ha
zard
ous
was
te.
ii) P
olic
y E
5 is
con
sist
ent w
ith th
e br
oad
obje
ctiv
e of
Com
mun
ity
Stra
tegy
: Loc
al E
nviro
nmen
t - P
riorit
y 3.
“To
safe
guar
d an
d en
hanc
e th
e B
orou
gh’s
loca
l env
ironm
ent,
enab
ling
deve
lopm
ent t
o m
eet t
he n
eeds
of r
esid
ents
with
out
unde
rmin
ing
the
valu
e or
via
bilit
y of
the
natu
ral e
nviro
nmen
t.”
iii) T
he L
ondo
n P
lan
Pol
icy
4A.1
7 di
rect
s Lo
cal A
utho
ritie
s to
en
sure
that
thei
r UD
P’s
incl
ude
polic
ies
whi
ch re
gula
te th
e lo
catio
n of
‘est
ablis
hmen
ts w
here
haz
ardo
us s
ubst
ance
s ar
e us
ed o
r sto
red…
boro
ughs
[are
dire
cted
to]..
take
into
acc
ount
th
e pr
esen
ce o
f haz
ardo
us s
ubst
ance
s in
mak
ing
polic
ies
and
dete
rmin
ing
appl
icat
ions
.’ P
olic
y E
5 is
con
sist
ent w
ith a
nd
achi
eves
this
requ
irem
ent.
iv) N
/A
v) N
/A
vi) P
olic
y E
5 he
lps
impl
emen
t the
Cou
ncil’s
was
te s
trate
gy a
nd
trans
late
s th
e ob
ject
ives
of P
PS
10
and
Lond
on P
lan
polic
y 4A
.17
to a
bor
ough
leve
l, by
regu
latin
g de
velo
pmen
ts
invo
lvin
g th
e us
e, s
tora
ge o
r dis
posa
l of h
azar
dous
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
subs
tanc
es. T
he p
olic
y do
es n
ot re
peat
hig
her p
olic
y or
any
ot
her p
olic
y pr
opos
ed to
be
save
d in
the
UD
P.
R
ange
of U
nit S
izes
E6
LA
RG
E SC
ALE
DEV
ELO
PMEN
TS P
RO
VID
ING
N
EW B
USI
NES
S (B
1), I
ND
UST
RIA
L B
2), A
ND
W
AR
EHO
USI
NG
(B8)
AC
CO
MM
OD
ATI
ON
SH
OU
LD N
OR
MA
LLY
INC
OR
POR
ATE
A R
AN
GE
OF
UN
IT S
IZES
.
N/
A
Cor
e st
rate
gy
and/
or
deve
lopm
ent
cont
rol
polic
ies
DP
D
i) P
art 1
pol
icie
s in
par
ticul
ar S
TR4
Loca
l eco
nom
y pr
ovid
e th
e ce
ntra
l stra
tegy
. ii)
Pol
icy
E6
is c
onsi
dere
d to
be
cons
iste
nt w
ith th
e br
oad
obje
ctiv
es o
f the
Com
mun
ity S
trate
gy: L
ocal
Eco
nom
y an
d H
ousi
ng -O
vera
ll ob
ject
ive:
‘To
ensu
re th
at th
e R
oyal
B
orou
gh’s
eco
nom
y is
pro
sper
ous
and
thriv
ing,
gen
erat
ing
a di
vers
e ra
nge
of e
mpl
oym
ent o
ppor
tuni
ties
and
prov
idin
g go
ods
and
serv
ices
for t
he w
hole
com
mun
ity’ a
nd P
riorit
y 5:
to
‘Sup
port
the
deliv
ery
of a
n ad
equa
te s
uppl
y of
site
s an
d pr
emis
es to
geth
er w
ith a
ppro
pria
te in
frast
ruct
ure
that
can
m
eet t
he n
eeds
of l
ocal
bus
ines
ses
and
is s
uita
ble
for i
nwar
d in
vest
ors.
’ iii)
Pol
icy
E6
is c
onsi
sten
t with
, and
pro
vide
s lo
cal c
onte
xt to
the
Lond
on P
lan
polic
ies
3B.1
Dev
elop
ing
Lond
on’s
Eco
nom
y an
d P
olic
y 3B
.2 O
ffice
Sup
ply
and
Dev
elop
men
t. Th
ese
polic
ies
flag
up th
e M
ayor
s in
tent
ions
to w
ork
with
stra
tegi
c pa
rtner
s to
see
k th
e pr
ovis
ion
of a
rang
e of
pre
mis
es o
f di
ffere
nt ty
pes,
siz
es a
nd c
osts
. Th
e Lo
ndon
Pla
n po
licie
s 3B
1 an
d 3B
2 sp
ecifi
cally
men
tion
the
May
ors
inte
ntio
n to
w
ork
with
‘stra
tegi
c pa
rtner
s’ to
ens
ure
that
an
adeq
uate
su
pply
of e
mpl
oym
ent u
nits
of v
ario
us s
izes
are
pro
vide
d.
How
ever
, the
se p
olic
ies
are
cons
ider
ed to
be
a st
atem
ent o
f in
tent
and
do
not a
dequ
atel
y im
pose
a ‘r
equi
rem
ent’
on
deve
lope
rs to
pro
vide
a m
ix o
f em
ploy
men
t pre
mis
es. P
olic
y
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
E6
trans
late
s th
e M
ayor
s in
tent
ions
as
stat
ed in
pol
icie
s 3B
.1
and
2 in
to lo
cal p
olic
y.
iv) N
/A
v) N
/A
vi) T
he b
orou
ghs’
eco
nom
y is
bas
ed o
n a
varie
ty o
f bus
ines
ses
and
indu
strie
s w
ith v
aryi
ng n
eeds
in te
rms
of a
ccom
mod
atio
n.
Ther
e is
no
spec
ific
refe
renc
e in
nat
iona
l gui
danc
e to
the
need
for a
mix
of u
nit s
izes
and
ther
e ar
e no
oth
er b
orou
gh
polic
ies
on th
e ra
nge
of e
mpl
oym
ent p
rem
ises
requ
ired
in
RB
K.
Ret
entio
n of
Sho
ps O
utsi
de K
ings
ton
Tow
n C
entr
e an
d th
e D
istr
ict a
nd L
ocal
Sho
ppin
g C
entr
es
S4
OU
TSID
E K
ING
STO
N T
OW
N C
ENTR
E A
ND
TH
E D
ISTR
ICT
AN
D L
OC
AL
SHO
PPIN
G C
ENTR
ES
PRO
POSA
LS W
HIC
H IN
VOLV
E TH
E LO
SS O
F R
ETA
IL A
CC
OM
MO
DA
TIO
N W
ILL
BE
RES
ISTE
D
WH
ERE:
(A
) A
DEQ
UA
TE A
LTER
NA
TIVE
RET
AIL
FA
CIL
ITIE
S A
RE
NO
T A
VAIL
AB
LE T
O S
ERVE
LO
CA
L R
ESID
ENTS
, AN
D
(B)
THE
PRO
VISI
ON
OF
A R
AN
GE
OF
BA
SIC
SH
OPP
ING
FA
CIL
ITIE
S IS
AD
VER
SELY
A
FFEC
TED
.
N
/A
N
/A
To
be
repl
aced
via
co
re s
trate
gy
and/
or
deve
lopm
ent
cont
rol D
PD
i) ce
ntra
l stra
tegy
pro
vide
d by
Par
t 1 p
olic
ies
ii) S
uppo
rts c
omm
unity
pla
n ob
ject
ive
to re
duce
the
need
to
trave
l ii)
In c
onfo
rmity
with
Pol
icy
3D.3
Mai
ntai
ning
and
Impr
ovin
g re
tail
faci
litie
s, b
ulle
t poi
nts
1 an
d 3.
iv
) N/A
v)
N/A
vi
) The
pol
icy
is n
eces
sary
to p
rote
ct lo
cal s
hops
out
side
ce
ntre
s, im
plem
entin
g P
PS 6
par
agra
ph 2
.58
whi
ch s
tate
s “lo
cal
auth
oriti
es s
houl
d w
here
app
ropr
iate
see
k to
pro
tect
exi
stin
g fa
cilit
ies
whi
ch p
rovi
de fo
r peo
ple’
s da
y to
day
nee
ds.”
Alte
rnat
ive
Use
of S
hops
Out
side
Kin
gsto
n
n/
a
To b
e i)
cent
ral s
trate
gy p
rovi
ded
by P
art 1
pol
icie
s
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
Tow
n C
entr
e, D
istr
ict a
nd L
ocal
Sho
ppin
g C
entr
es
S5
OU
TSID
E K
ING
STO
N T
OW
N C
ENTR
E A
ND
TH
E D
ISTR
ICT
AN
D L
OC
AL
SHO
PPIN
G C
ENTR
ES
AN
D W
HER
E A
DEQ
UA
TE A
LTER
NA
TIVE
SH
OPP
ING
FA
CIL
ITIE
S A
RE
AVA
ILA
BLE
, A
CH
AN
GE
OF
USE
OF
AN
EXI
STIN
G S
HO
P M
AY
BE
PER
MIT
TED
TO
:- (A
)
FIN
AN
CIA
L O
R P
RO
FESS
ION
AL
SER
VIC
ES A
PPR
OPR
IATE
TO
A S
HO
PPIN
G
AR
EA (C
LASS
A2)
, OR
LA
UN
DER
ETTE
, OR
A3
USE
S, S
UB
JEC
T TO
TH
ERE
BEI
NG
NO
A
DVE
RSE
IMPA
CT
ON
RES
IDEN
TIA
L A
MEN
ITY,
O
R S
MA
LL O
FFIC
ES P
RO
VID
ING
AN
ES
SEN
TIA
L LO
CA
L SE
RVI
CE;
(B
)
RES
IDEN
TIA
L U
SE;
(C)
CO
MM
UN
ITY
FAC
ILIT
IES,
INC
LUD
ING
SU
RG
ERIE
S, C
ON
SIST
ENT
WIT
H P
OLI
CY
CS1
.
repl
aced
via
co
re s
trate
gy
and/
or
deve
lopm
ent
cont
rol D
PD
ii) N
o re
fere
nce
is m
ade
to s
hops
out
side
the
cent
res
in th
e co
mm
unity
pla
n iii)
In c
onfo
rmity
with
Pol
icy
3D.3
Mai
ntai
ning
and
Impr
ovin
g re
tail
faci
litie
s iv
) N/A
v)
N/A
vi
) Thi
s po
licy
is n
eces
sary
as
it co
mpl
emen
ts p
olic
y S
4 in
list
ing
pref
erre
d al
tern
ativ
e us
es to
a s
hop.
New
Sm
all S
hops
Out
side
Cen
tres
S6
A
PPLI
CA
TIO
NS
FOR
NEW
, SM
ALL
, C
ON
VEN
IEN
CE
SHO
PS IN
DIS
PER
SED
LO
CA
TIO
NS
WIL
L B
E C
ON
SID
ERED
FA
VOU
RA
BLY
IN A
REA
S W
HER
E C
ON
VEN
IEN
CE
SHO
PS A
RE
BEY
ON
D
REA
SON
AB
LE W
ALK
ING
DIS
TAN
CE.
ON
LY
N/
A
To
be
repl
aced
via
co
re s
trate
gy
and/
or
deve
lopm
ent
cont
rol D
PD
i) P
art 1
pol
icie
s pr
ovid
e th
e ce
ntra
l stra
tegy
ii)
Sup
ports
Com
mun
ity P
lan
obje
ctiv
e to
redu
ce th
e ne
ed to
tra
vel.
iii) In
gen
eral
con
form
ity w
ith L
ondo
n P
lan
polic
y 3D
.3 b
ulle
t po
int 3
. iv
) N/A
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
SHO
PS W
ITH
IN T
HE
A1
SHO
PS U
SE C
LASS
, O
R W
HIC
H D
IREC
TLY
BEN
EFIT
LO
CA
L R
ESID
ENTS
, WIL
L B
E A
CC
EPTA
BLE
. TH
ERE
SHO
ULD
BE
NO
AD
VER
SE E
FFEC
T O
N T
HE
AM
ENIT
IES
OF
NEA
RB
Y R
ESID
ENTS
.
v) N
/A
vi) T
he p
olic
y is
nec
essa
ry to
gui
de th
e pr
ovis
ion
of s
hops
ou
tsid
e sh
oppi
ng a
reas
suc
h th
at n
eeds
are
met
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith P
PS
6 p
arag
raph
2.5
8.
Vehi
cle
Sale
s et
c.
S7
A D
EVEL
OPM
ENT
PRO
POSA
L IN
VOLV
ING
PE
TRO
L FI
LLIN
G S
TATI
ON
S, V
EHIC
LE S
ALE
S,
VEH
ICLE
HIR
E, C
OU
RIE
R S
ERVI
CES
/MIN
I CA
B
OFF
ICES
AN
D S
IMIL
AR
USE
S SH
OU
LD M
EET
ALL
TH
E FO
LLO
WIN
G C
ON
DIT
ION
S:-
(A)
TH
E PR
OPO
SAL
WIL
L N
OT
AD
VER
SELY
AFF
ECT
THE
AM
ENIT
IES
OF
NEA
RB
Y R
ESID
ENTS
, EN
VIR
ON
MEN
TAL
CO
ND
ITIO
NS,
OR
TR
AFF
IC C
ON
DIT
ION
S A
ND
SA
FETY
; (B
)
THE
PRO
POSE
D S
ITE
POSS
ESSE
S A
M
AIN
RO
AD
FR
ON
TAG
E;
(C)
TH
E PR
OPO
SED
SIT
E IS
OF
AD
EQU
ATE
SI
ZE T
O E
NSU
RE
THA
T A
LL P
AR
KIN
G,
SER
VIC
ING
, LO
AD
ING
AN
D U
NLO
AD
ING
R
EQU
IREM
ENTS
OF
THE
PRO
POSE
D U
SE A
RE
CO
NTA
INED
WIT
HIN
TH
E C
UR
TILA
GE
OF
THE
DEV
ELO
PMEN
T SI
TE.
N/
A N
/A
N/
A
To
be
repl
aced
via
co
re s
trate
gy
and/
or
deve
lopm
ent
cont
rol D
PD
i) P
art 1
pol
icie
s pr
ovid
e th
e ce
ntra
l stra
tegy
ii) N
/A
iii) N
/A
vi) N
/A
v) N
/A
vi) T
he ty
pes
of d
evel
opm
ent d
iscu
ssed
do
pose
par
ticul
ar
issu
es in
term
s of
traf
fic g
ener
atio
n an
d ac
cess
, and
impa
ct o
n am
enity
if p
oorly
site
d. T
he p
olic
y an
d su
ppor
ting
text
pro
vide
he
lpfu
l gui
danc
e an
d cr
iteria
to a
ssis
t tho
se w
ishi
ng to
dev
elop
th
ese
uses
.
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
Take
away
Foo
d Sh
ops,
Res
taur
ants
etc
. S8
O
UTS
IDE
KIN
GST
ON
TO
WN
CEN
TRE
AN
D T
HE
DIS
TRIC
T A
ND
LO
CA
L SH
OPP
ING
CEN
TRES
PR
OPO
SALS
INVO
LVIN
G T
HE
SALE
OF
FOO
D
AN
D D
RIN
K (C
LASS
A3)
AN
D A
MU
SEM
ENT
CEN
TRES
WIL
L B
E PE
RM
ITTE
D W
HER
E A
LL
THE
FOLL
OW
ING
CO
ND
ITIO
NS
AR
E M
ET:-
(A)
THE
PRO
POSA
L W
ILL
NO
T EI
THER
IN
DIV
IDU
ALL
Y O
R C
UM
ULA
TIVE
LY
AD
VER
SELY
AFF
ECT:
(I)
TH
E A
MEN
ITIE
S O
F N
EAR
BY
RES
IDEN
TS B
Y VI
RTU
E O
F N
OIS
E, L
ITTE
R,
FUM
ES, S
MEL
LS E
TC;
(II)
TRA
FFIC
CO
ND
ITIO
NS
AN
D S
AFE
TY;
(B)
THE
PRO
POSE
D S
ITE
POSS
ESSE
S A
M
AIN
RO
AD
FR
ON
TAG
E.
N/
A N
/A
N/
A
To
be
repl
aced
via
co
re s
trate
gy
and/
or
deve
lopm
ent
cont
rol D
PD
i) P
art 1
pol
icie
s pr
ovid
e th
e ce
ntra
l stra
tegy
ii)
N/A
iii)
N/A
vi
) N/A
v)
N/A
vi
) The
type
s of
dev
elop
men
t dis
cuss
ed d
o po
se p
artic
ular
is
sues
in te
rms
of tr
affic
gen
erat
ion
and
acce
ss, a
nd im
pact
on
amen
ity if
poo
rly s
ited.
The
pol
icy
and
supp
ortin
g te
xt p
rovi
de
help
ful g
uida
nce
and
crite
ria to
ass
ist t
hose
wis
hing
to d
evel
op
thes
e us
es.
Out
door
Mar
kets
S9
PE
RM
ISSI
ON
WIL
L N
OT
NO
RM
ALL
Y B
E G
RA
NTE
D F
OR
OU
TDO
OR
MA
RK
ETS
OR
IN
DIV
IDU
AL
MA
RK
ET S
TALL
S, O
THER
TH
AN
IN
PUR
POSE
DES
IGN
ED D
EVEL
OPM
ENTS
IN
KIN
GST
ON
TO
WN
CEN
TRE
AN
D T
HE
DIS
TRIC
T A
ND
LO
CA
L C
ENTR
ES, A
ND
TH
EN O
NLY
W
HEN
IT C
AN
BE
SATI
SFA
CTO
RIL
Y
N
/A
N
/A
To
be
repl
aced
via
co
re s
trate
gy
and/
or
deve
lopm
ent
cont
rol D
PD
i) P
art 1
pol
icie
s pr
ovid
e th
e ce
ntra
l stra
tegy
ii)
N/A
iii
) In
gene
ral c
onfo
rmity
with
Lon
don
Pla
n P
olic
ies
3D.1
, 3D
.2
and
3D.3
. iv
) N/A
v)
N/A
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
DEM
ON
STR
ATE
D T
HA
T TH
E EX
ISTI
NG
M
AR
KET
S IN
KIN
GST
ON
TO
WN
CEN
TRE
WIL
L N
OT
BE
AD
VER
SELY
AFF
ECTE
D.
vi) T
his
polic
y is
nec
essa
ry to
cla
rify
the
polic
y on
mar
ket s
talls
, i.e
. tha
t the
y ar
e ac
cept
able
onl
y if
done
pro
perly
in e
xist
ing
reta
il ar
eas.
Con
serv
ing
and
Enha
ncin
g th
e B
uilt
Envi
ronm
ent
STR
6 TH
E C
OU
NC
IL W
ILL
SEEK
TO
AC
HIE
VE A
HIG
H
QU
ALI
TY B
UIL
T EN
VIR
ON
MEN
T IN
TH
E B
OR
OU
GH
BY:
- C
ON
SER
VIN
G O
R E
NH
AN
CIN
G T
HE
EXIS
TIN
G
ENVI
RO
NM
ENT,
PA
RTI
CU
LAR
LY A
REA
S O
F H
IGH
QU
ALI
TY A
ND
CH
AR
AC
TER
AN
D
BU
ILD
ING
S A
ND
SIT
ES A
SSO
CIA
TED
WIT
H
THE
HIS
TOR
Y O
R H
ERIT
AG
E O
F TH
E B
OR
OU
GH
; R
EQU
IRIN
G A
HIG
H S
TAN
DA
RD
OF
DES
IGN
FO
R N
EW D
EVEL
OPM
ENT,
APP
RO
PRIA
TE T
O
THE
CH
AR
AC
TER
OF
THE
SUR
RO
UN
DIN
GS;
SA
FEG
UA
RD
ING
KEY
VIE
WS
WIT
HIN
, OU
T O
F,
AN
D IN
TO T
HE
BO
RO
UG
H.
n/
a
Rep
lace
with
th
e co
re
stra
tegy
i) P
art 1
pol
icie
s in
clud
ing
polic
y S
TR6
form
the
cent
ral s
trate
gy.
The
polic
y al
so h
elps
del
iver
Key
Obj
ectiv
e 12
(The
Bes
t Pla
ce
to L
ive)
of t
he C
ounc
il’s c
orpo
rate
Pol
icy
Pro
gram
me
2006
-20
10.
ii) T
he C
omm
unity
Pla
n do
es n
ot s
ay a
nyth
ing
spec
ific
abou
t co
nser
vatio
n or
the
desi
gn q
ualit
y of
the
built
env
ironm
ent.
iii)
The
app
roac
h is
in g
ener
al c
onfo
rmity
with
the
follo
win
g Lo
ndon
Pla
n po
licie
s: 4
B.1
(Des
ign
prin
cipl
es fo
r a c
ompa
ct
city
), 4B
.4 (e
nhan
cing
the
qual
ity o
f the
pub
lic re
alm
), 4B
.7
(Res
pect
loca
l con
text
and
com
mun
ities
), 4B
.10
(Lon
don’
s bu
ilt
herit
age)
, 4B
.11
(Her
itage
con
serv
atio
n) a
nd 4
B.1
5 (L
ondo
n vi
ew p
rote
ctio
n fra
mew
ork)
. iv
) N/A
v)
Thi
s po
licy
is im
porta
nt fo
r are
as w
here
con
serv
atio
n is
en
visa
ged.
vi
) Th
is p
olic
y is
nec
essa
ry to
set
the
over
all a
ppro
ach
to
achi
evin
g hi
gh q
ualit
y de
sign
, con
serv
atio
n an
d th
e pr
otec
tion
of
key
view
s, in
acc
orda
nce
with
PP
S1
and
PP
G 1
5: p
lann
ing
and
the
hist
oric
env
ironm
ent (
whi
ch a
t par
agra
ph 2
.6 a
nd 2
.8 w
hich
st
ate
that
the
hist
oric
env
ironm
ent s
houl
d fe
atur
e as
a k
ey to
pic
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
in U
DP
par
t 1 p
olic
ies)
.
St
rate
gic
Are
as o
f Spe
cial
Cha
ract
er a
nd th
e Pr
otec
tion
of K
ey V
iew
s B
E1
THE
CO
UN
CIL
WIL
L SA
FEG
UA
RD
TH
E TO
WN
SCA
PE O
F TH
E ST
RA
TEG
IC A
REA
S O
F SP
ECIA
L C
HA
RA
CTE
R D
EFIN
ED O
N T
HE
PRO
POSA
LS M
AP,
BY
PRO
TEC
TIN
G T
HE
SKYL
INES
, CH
AR
AC
TER
, SC
ALE
AN
D T
HE
QU
ALI
TY O
F M
AJO
R O
PEN
SPA
CES
AN
D
HIS
TOR
IC B
UIL
DIN
GS
REL
ATI
NG
TO
TH
EM. I
N
AD
DIT
ION
, TH
E C
OU
NC
IL W
ILL
SEEK
TO
PR
OTE
CT
A N
UM
BER
OF
KEY
VIE
WS,
WH
ICH
A
RE
LIST
ED B
ELO
W A
ND
IDEN
TIFI
ED O
N M
AP
BE1
.
n/
a
To b
e re
plac
ed b
y th
e co
re
stra
tegy
an
d/or
de
velo
pmen
t co
ntro
l po
licie
s D
PD
i) P
olic
y B
E1
expa
nds
on p
oint
s A
and
C o
f par
t 1 p
olic
y S
TR6
(see
abo
ve).
ii) T
he C
omm
unity
Pla
n do
es n
ot s
ay a
nyth
ing
spec
ific
abou
t co
nser
vatio
n or
the
desi
gn q
ualit
y of
the
built
env
ironm
ent.
iii) T
he a
ppro
ach
is in
gen
eral
con
form
ity w
ith p
olic
y 4B
.10
(Lon
don’
s bu
ilt h
erita
ge),
4B.1
1 (H
erita
ge c
onse
rvat
ion)
and
4B
.15
(Lon
don
view
pro
tect
ion
fram
ewor
k) o
f the
Lon
don
Pla
n.
iv) N
/A
v) P
rote
cts
area
s w
here
con
serv
atio
n of
the
exis
ting
char
acte
r is
para
mou
nt.
vi) T
he p
olic
y is
nec
essa
ry to
pro
tect
thos
e de
sign
ated
are
as o
f sp
ecia
l cha
ract
er (r
ecog
nise
d in
PP
S1
para
. 17
and
PP
S3)
.
Loca
l Are
as o
f Spe
cial
Cha
ract
er
BE2
TH
E C
OU
NC
IL W
ILL
SAFE
GU
AR
D T
HE
TOW
NSC
APE
OF
LOC
AL
AR
EAS
OF
SPEC
IAL
CH
AR
AC
TER
, AS
IDEN
TIFI
ED O
N T
HE
PRO
POSA
LS M
AP,
BY
PRO
TEC
TIN
G T
HE
IND
IVID
UA
L C
HA
RA
CTE
R, S
CA
LE A
ND
Q
UA
LITY
OF
THE
AR
EAS
AN
D A
NY
FEA
TUR
E W
HIC
H C
ON
TRIB
UTE
S TO
TH
AT
CH
AR
AC
TER
.
n/
a
To b
e re
plac
ed b
y th
e co
re
stra
tegy
an
d/or
de
velo
pmen
t co
ntro
l po
licie
s D
PD
i) P
olic
y B
E2
expa
nds
on p
oint
A a
nd B
of p
art 1
pol
icy
STR
6.
ii) T
he C
omm
unity
Pla
n do
es n
ot s
ay a
nyth
ing
spec
ific
abou
t co
nser
vatio
n or
the
desi
gn q
ualit
y of
the
built
env
ironm
ent.
iii) T
he a
ppro
ach
is in
gen
eral
con
form
ity w
ith p
olic
y 4B
.7
(res
pect
loca
l con
text
and
com
mun
ities
), 4B
.10
(Lon
don’
s bu
ilt
herit
age)
and
4B
.11
(Her
itage
con
serv
atio
n) o
f the
Lon
don
Pla
n.
iv) N
/A
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
v)
The
pol
icy
prot
ects
are
as w
here
con
serv
atio
n of
loca
l ch
arac
ter i
s pa
ram
ount
. vi
) The
pol
icy
is n
eces
sary
to p
rote
ct th
ose
desi
gnat
ed a
reas
of
spec
ial c
hara
cter
(rec
ogni
sed
in P
PS
1 pa
ra. 1
7 an
d P
PS
3).
Pol
icy
BE
2 is
als
o co
nsis
tent
with
PP
G15
: Pla
nnin
g an
d th
e H
isto
ric E
nviro
nmen
t whi
ch h
ighl
ight
s th
e du
ty o
n LP
As
to k
eep
cons
erva
tion
area
s un
der r
evie
w a
nd s
ugge
st th
at th
e ar
eas
in
min
d fo
r thi
s ar
e se
t out
in lo
cal p
lans
. Fut
ure
Con
serv
atio
n A
rea
desi
gnat
ions
are
like
ly to
be
draw
n fro
m th
e LA
SC
s de
fined
in
polic
y B
E2.
Dev
elop
men
t in
Con
serv
atio
n A
reas
B
E3
THE
CO
UN
CIL
WIL
L G
IVE
SPEC
IAL
ATT
ENTI
ON
TO
TH
E D
ESIG
N O
F D
EVEL
OPM
ENT
PRO
POSA
LS W
ITH
IN O
R A
DJO
ININ
G
CO
NSE
RVA
TIO
N A
REA
S. IN
SU
CH
INST
AN
CES
TH
E C
OU
NC
IL W
ILL:
- A
. R
ESIS
T TH
E LO
SS O
F B
UIL
DIN
GS,
TR
EES
AN
D O
THER
FEA
TUR
ES T
HA
T M
AK
E A
PO
SITI
VE C
ON
TRIB
UTI
ON
TO
TH
E C
HA
RA
CTE
R O
R A
PPEA
RA
NC
E O
F TH
E A
REA
; B
. PE
RM
IT D
EVEL
OPM
ENT
AN
D
RED
EVEL
OPM
ENT
ON
LY W
HER
E TH
E PR
OPO
SED
DEV
ELO
PMEN
T IS
OF
A H
IGH
D
ESIG
N S
TAN
DA
RD
AN
D W
OU
LD P
RES
ERVE
n/
a
To b
e re
plac
ed b
y th
e co
re
stra
tegy
an
d/or
de
velo
pmen
t co
ntro
l po
licie
s D
PD
i) P
olic
y B
E3
expa
nds
on p
oint
A a
nd B
of p
art 1
pol
icy
STR
6.
ii) T
he C
omm
unity
Pla
n do
es n
ot s
ay a
nyth
ing
spec
ific
abou
t co
nser
vatio
n or
the
desi
gn q
ualit
y of
the
built
env
ironm
ent.
iii) T
he a
ppro
ach
is in
gen
eral
con
form
ity w
ith p
olic
y 4B
.7
(res
pect
loca
l con
text
and
com
mun
ities
), 4B
.10
(Lon
don’
s bu
ilt
herit
age)
and
4B
.11
(Her
itage
con
serv
atio
n) o
f the
Lon
don
Pla
n.
iv) N
/A
v) T
he p
olic
y pr
otec
ts a
reas
of c
onse
rvat
ion
vi) P
PG
15: P
lann
ing
and
the
His
toric
Env
ironm
ent i
s cl
ear t
hat
issu
es re
gard
ing
cons
erva
tion
area
s an
d lis
ted
build
ings
sho
uld
be c
over
ed in
dev
elop
men
t pla
n po
licie
s. T
he L
ondo
n P
lan
does
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
OR
EN
HA
NC
E TH
E C
HA
RA
CTE
R O
R
APP
EAR
AN
CE
OF
THE
AR
EA.
not g
o in
to d
etai
l on
the
issu
e.
Dem
oliti
on o
f Bui
ldin
gs in
Con
serv
atio
n A
reas
B
E4
THE
CO
UN
CIL
WIL
L R
ESIS
T TH
E LO
SS O
F B
UIL
DIN
GS
THA
T M
AK
E A
PO
SITI
VE
CO
NTR
IBU
TIO
N T
O T
HE
CH
AR
AC
TER
OR
A
PPEA
RA
NC
E O
F A
CO
NSE
RVA
TIO
N A
REA
A
ND
WIL
L O
NLY
GR
AN
T C
ON
SEN
T FO
R T
HE
DEM
OLI
TIO
N O
F O
THER
BU
ILD
ING
S W
HER
E A
PPR
OVA
L H
AS
ALR
EAD
Y B
EEN
GIV
EN F
OR
SA
TISF
AC
TOR
Y R
EDEV
ELO
PMEN
T O
F TH
E SI
TE.
n/
a
To b
e re
plac
ed b
y de
velo
pmen
t co
ntro
l po
licie
s D
PD
i) P
olic
y B
E4
expa
nds
on p
oint
A o
f par
t 1 p
olic
y S
TR6.
ii)
The
Com
mun
ity P
lan
does
not
say
any
thin
g sp
ecifi
c ab
out
cons
erva
tion
or th
e de
sign
qua
lity
of th
e bu
ilt e
nviro
nmen
t iii)
The
app
roac
h is
in g
ener
al c
onfo
rmity
with
pol
icy
4B.1
0 (L
ondo
n’s
built
her
itage
) and
4B
.11
(Her
itage
con
serv
atio
n) o
f th
e Lo
ndon
Pla
n.
iv) N
/A
v) T
he p
olic
y pr
otec
ts a
reas
of c
onse
rvat
ion
vi) P
PG
15: P
lann
ing
and
the
His
toric
Env
ironm
ent i
s cl
ear t
hat
issu
es re
gard
ing
cons
erva
tion
area
s an
d lis
ted
build
ings
sho
uld
be c
over
ed in
dev
elop
men
t pla
n po
licie
s. T
he L
ondo
n P
lan
does
no
t go
into
det
ail o
n th
e is
sue.
D
emol
ition
of L
iste
d B
uild
ings
B
E5
THER
E IS
A P
RES
UM
PTIO
N IN
FA
VOU
R O
F TH
E PR
ESER
VATI
ON
OF
LIST
ED B
UIL
DIN
GS
EXC
EPT
WH
ERE
A S
TRO
NG
CA
SE C
AN
BE
MA
DE
FOR
DEM
OLI
TIO
N A
FTER
APP
LIC
ATI
ON
O
F TH
E FO
LLO
WIN
G C
RIT
ERIA
:- 1.
TH
E IM
POR
TAN
CE
OF
THE
BU
ILD
ING
n/
a
To b
e re
plac
ed b
y de
velo
pmen
t co
ntro
l po
licie
s D
PD
i) P
olic
y B
E5
expa
nds
on p
oint
A o
f par
t 1 p
olic
y S
TR6.
ii)
The
Com
mun
ity P
lan
does
not
say
any
thin
g sp
ecifi
c ab
out
cons
erva
tion
or th
e de
sign
qua
lity
of th
e bu
ilt e
nviro
nmen
t iii)
The
app
roac
h is
in g
ener
al c
onfo
rmity
with
pol
icy
4B.1
0 (L
ondo
n’s
built
her
itage
) and
4B
.11
(Her
itage
con
serv
atio
n) o
f th
e Lo
ndon
Pla
n.
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
IN T
ERM
S O
F IT
S IN
TRIN
SIC
AR
CH
ITEC
TUR
AL
AN
D H
ISTO
RIC
INTE
RES
T, IT
S C
ON
TRIB
UTI
ON
TO
TH
E LO
CA
L SC
ENE,
AN
D IT
S R
AR
ITY,
IN
BO
TH N
ATI
ON
AL
AN
D L
OC
AL
TER
MS;
2.
TH
E PA
RTI
CU
LAR
PH
YSIC
AL
FEA
TUR
ES O
F TH
E B
UIL
DIN
G W
HIC
H J
UST
IFY
ITS
INC
LUSI
ON
IN T
HE
LIST
; TH
E C
ON
DIT
ION
OF
THE
BU
ILD
ING
, TH
E C
OST
O
F R
EPA
IRIN
G A
ND
MA
INTA
ININ
G IT
IN
REL
ATI
ON
TO
ITS
IMPO
RTA
NC
E, A
ND
W
HET
HER
IT W
OU
LD B
E EL
IGIB
LE F
OR
G
RA
NTS
FR
OM
PU
BLI
C F
UN
DS;
TH
E IM
POR
TAN
CE
OF
AN
Y A
LTER
NA
TIVE
USE
FO
R T
HE
SITE
AN
D, I
N P
AR
TIC
ULA
R,
WH
ETH
ER T
HE
NEW
USE
WO
ULD
BR
ING
SU
BST
AN
TIA
L B
ENEF
ITS
FOR
TH
E C
OM
MU
NIT
Y. IN
AD
DIT
ION
, BEF
OR
E G
RA
NTI
NG
LIS
TED
BU
ILD
ING
CO
NSE
NT
THE
CO
UN
CIL
WIL
L EX
PEC
T TO
SEE
EVI
DEN
CE
THA
T TH
E FR
EEH
OLD
OF
THE
BU
ILD
ING
HA
S B
EEN
OFF
ERED
FO
R S
ALE
ON
TH
E O
PEN
M
AR
KET
.
vi) N
/A
v) T
he p
olic
y pr
otec
ts a
reas
for c
onse
rvat
ion
vi) P
PG
15: P
lann
ing
and
the
His
toric
Env
ironm
ent i
s cl
ear t
hat
issu
es re
gard
ing
cons
erva
tion
area
s an
d lis
ted
build
ings
sho
uld
be c
over
ed in
dev
elop
men
t pla
n po
licie
s. T
he L
ondo
n P
lan
does
no
t go
into
det
ail o
n th
e is
sue.
Pol
icy
BE
5 ac
cord
s w
ith th
e gu
idan
ce g
iven
in s
ectio
n 2
and
para
grap
hs 3
.16-
3.19
of P
PG
15
on d
emol
ition
.
Wor
ks A
ffect
ing
the
Cha
ract
er o
f Lis
ted
Bui
ldin
gs
BE6
TH
E C
OU
NC
IL W
ILL
ENSU
RE
THE
MA
INTE
NA
NC
E A
ND
REP
AIR
OF
LIST
ED
BU
ILD
ING
S B
Y U
SIN
G IT
S ST
ATU
TOR
Y
n/
a
N/
A
To b
e re
plac
ed b
y de
velo
pmen
t co
ntro
l po
licie
s D
PD
i) P
olic
y B
E6
expa
nds
on p
oint
A a
nd B
of p
art 1
pol
icy
STR
6.
ii) T
he C
omm
unity
Pla
n do
es n
ot s
ay a
nyth
ing
spec
ific
abou
t co
nser
vatio
n or
the
desi
gn q
ualit
y of
the
built
env
ironm
ent
iii) T
he a
ppro
ach
is in
gen
eral
con
form
ity w
ith p
olic
y 4B
.10
(Lon
don’
s bu
ilt h
erita
ge) a
nd 4
B.1
1 (H
erita
ge c
onse
rvat
ion)
of
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
POW
ERS
AN
D W
ILL
ON
LY P
ERM
IT
DEV
ELO
PMEN
T A
FFEC
TIN
G T
HE
SETT
ING
OR
TH
E A
LTER
ATI
ON
OR
EXT
ENSI
ON
OF
A
LIST
ED B
UIL
DIN
G W
HER
E TH
E PR
OPO
SALS
W
OU
LD N
OT
AD
VER
SELY
AFF
ECT
THE
BU
ILD
ING
’S C
HA
RA
CTE
R A
S O
NE
OF
SPEC
IAL
AR
CH
ITEC
TUR
AL
OR
HIS
TOR
IC IN
TER
EST.
the
Lond
on P
lan.
iv
) N/A
v)
N/A
vi
) PP
G15
: Pla
nnin
g an
d th
e H
isto
ric E
nviro
nmen
t is
clea
r tha
t is
sues
rega
rdin
g co
nser
vatio
n ar
eas
and
liste
d bu
ildin
gs s
houl
d be
cov
ered
in d
evel
opm
ent p
lan
polic
ies.
The
Lon
don
Pla
n do
es
not g
o in
to d
etai
l on
the
issu
e. T
his
polic
y ac
cord
s w
ith th
e pr
inci
ples
and
gui
danc
e se
t out
in P
PG
15
at p
arag
raph
s 2.
8 an
d 2.
16.
C
hang
e of
Use
of L
iste
d B
uild
ings
B
E7
THE
PREF
ERR
ED U
SE O
F A
LIS
TED
BU
ILD
ING
IS
NO
RM
ALL
Y TH
E O
NE
FOR
WH
ICH
IT W
AS
DES
IGN
ED. I
F TH
E C
OU
NC
IL IS
SA
TISF
IED
TH
AT
THE
OR
IGIN
AL
USE
IS N
O L
ON
GER
A
PPR
OPR
IATE
OR
VIA
BLE
, IT
WIL
L A
DO
PT A
FL
EXIB
LE A
PPR
OA
CH
IN D
EALI
NG
WIT
H A
NY
PRO
POSA
L FO
R A
N A
LTER
NA
TIVE
USE
, PR
OVI
DED
IT W
OU
LD S
AFE
GU
AR
D T
HE
CH
AR
AC
TER
AN
D S
ETTI
NG
OF
THE
BU
ILD
ING
.
n/
a
N/
A
To b
e re
plac
ed b
y de
velo
pmen
t co
ntro
l po
licie
s D
PD
i) P
olic
y B
E7
expa
nds
on p
oint
A o
f par
t 1 p
olic
y S
TR6.
ii)
The
Com
mun
ity P
lan
does
not
say
any
thin
g sp
ecifi
c ab
out
cons
erva
tion
or th
e de
sign
qua
lity
of th
e bu
ilt e
nviro
nmen
t iii)
The
app
roac
h is
in g
ener
al c
onfo
rmity
with
pol
icy
4B.1
0 (L
ondo
n’s
built
her
itage
) and
4B
.11
(Her
itage
con
serv
atio
n) o
f th
e Lo
ndon
Pla
n.
iv) N
/A
v) N
/A
vi) P
PG
15: P
lann
ing
and
the
His
toric
Env
ironm
ent i
s cl
ear t
hat
issu
es re
gard
ing
cons
erva
tion
area
s an
d lis
ted
build
ings
sho
uld
be c
over
ed in
dev
elop
men
t pla
n po
licie
s. T
he L
ondo
n P
lan
does
no
t go
into
det
ail o
n th
e is
sue.
Thi
s po
licy
acco
rds
with
the
prin
cipl
es a
nd g
uida
nce
set o
ut in
PP
G 1
5 at
par
agra
phs
2.8,
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
2.18
and
3.8
-3.1
1.
G
rass
Ver
ges
BE1
0 TH
E ER
OSI
ON
OF
GR
ASS
VER
GES
BY
BU
ILT
DEV
ELO
PMEN
T FO
R V
EHIC
LE C
RO
SSO
VER
S W
ILL
BE
RES
ISTE
D.
N
/A
To
be
repl
aced
by
deve
lopm
ent
cont
rol
polic
ies
DP
D
i) P
olic
y S
TR6
and
othe
r par
t 1 p
olic
ies
prov
ide
the
cent
ral
stra
tegy
ii)
The
Com
mun
ity P
lan
does
not
say
any
thin
g sp
ecifi
c ab
out
cons
erva
tion
or th
e de
sign
qua
lity
of th
e bu
ilt e
nviro
nmen
t iii
) The
app
roac
h is
in g
ener
al c
onfo
rmity
with
Lon
don
plan
po
licy
3D.1
2 bi
odiv
ersi
ty a
nd n
atur
e co
nser
vatio
n w
hich
re
cogn
ises
the
cont
ribut
ion
that
gra
ss v
erge
s m
ake
to L
ondo
n’s
Gre
en C
orrid
ors
(par
a 3.
257)
whi
ch, i
n tu
rn, “
may
con
tribu
te to
la
ndsc
ape
qual
ity a
s w
ell a
s bi
odiv
ersi
ty. T
his
appr
oach
is
furth
er s
uppo
rted
in ‘B
y D
esig
n: u
rban
des
ign
and
the
plan
ning
sy
stem
- tow
ards
bet
ter p
ract
ice’
. iv
) N/A
v)
N/A
vi
) The
pol
icy
is n
eces
sary
giv
en th
e na
ture
of s
ome
resi
dent
ial
area
s in
the
boro
ugh
and
the
nega
tive
impa
ct th
at to
o m
any
vehi
cle
cros
s-ov
ers
can
have
on
loca
l cha
ract
er.
The
polic
y ac
cord
s w
ith th
e ge
nera
l prin
cipl
es o
f env
ironm
enta
l en
hanc
emen
t and
sus
tain
abilit
y se
t out
in P
PS
1.
D
esig
n of
New
Bui
ldin
gs a
nd E
xten
sion
s B
E11
ALL
DEV
ELO
PMEN
T TH
RO
UG
HO
UT
THE
N
/A
To
be
repl
aced
by
deve
lopm
ent
cont
rol
i) P
olic
y B
E11
exp
ands
on
poin
t B o
f par
t 1 p
olic
y S
TR6.
ii)
The
Com
mun
ity P
lan
does
not
say
any
thin
g sp
ecifi
c ab
out
cons
erva
tion
or th
e de
sign
qua
lity
of th
e bu
ilt e
nviro
nmen
t
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
BO
RO
UG
H S
HO
ULD
AC
CO
RD
WIT
H S
OU
ND
PR
INC
IPLE
S R
ELA
TIN
G T
O D
ESIG
N,
APP
EAR
AN
CE
AN
D S
ITIN
G A
ND
SH
OU
LD N
OT
CA
USE
UN
AC
CEP
TAB
LE H
AR
M T
O T
HE
VISU
AL
QU
ALI
TY A
ND
CH
AR
AC
TER
OF
THE
LOC
ALI
TY. I
N P
AR
TIC
ULA
R, D
UE
REG
AR
D
WIL
L B
E G
IVEN
TO
TH
E FO
LLO
WIN
G:
REL
ATI
ON
SHIP
TO
AD
JOIN
ING
PR
OPE
RTI
ES,
INC
LUD
ING
TH
EIR
RO
OF
FOR
MS
AN
D O
THER
EX
TER
NA
L FE
ATU
RES
, AN
D T
HE
STR
EETS
CEN
E;
REL
ATI
ON
SHIP
TO
MA
IN B
UIL
DIN
G IN
TH
E C
ASE
OF
EXTE
NSI
ON
S A
ND
AN
CIL
LAR
Y B
UIL
DIN
GS;
C
) A
VOID
AN
CE
OF
VISU
AL
INTR
USI
ON
; D
) M
ATE
RIA
LS.
polic
ies
DP
D
iii) T
he a
ppro
ach
is in
gen
eral
con
form
ity w
ith p
olic
y 4B
.1
(Prin
cipl
es o
f dei
gn fo
r a c
ompa
ct c
ity) a
nd 4
B.7
(Res
pect
loca
l co
ntex
t and
com
mun
ities
) of t
he L
ondo
n P
lan.
iv
) N/A
v)
N/A
vi
) Thi
s po
licy
is a
key
gen
eric
des
ign
polic
y in
the
UD
P.
It ac
cord
s w
ith th
e pr
inci
ples
of P
PS
1 re
gard
ing
good
des
ign.
O
ther
UD
P p
olic
ies
rega
rdin
g de
sign
are
pro
pose
d fo
r del
etio
n on
the
basi
s th
at g
ener
ic d
esig
n po
licie
s re
mai
n sa
ved.
Layo
ut a
nd A
men
ity o
f Bui
ldin
gs a
nd
Exte
nsio
ns
BE1
2 A
LL D
EVEL
OPM
ENT
SHO
ULD
HA
VE P
RO
PER
R
EGA
RD
TO
TH
E A
MEN
ITY
OF
ITS
USE
RS
AN
D
THE
USE
RS
OF
NEA
RB
Y D
EVEL
OPM
ENTS
. PA
RTI
CU
LAR
CO
NSI
DER
ATI
ON
SH
OU
LD B
E G
IVEN
TO
TH
E FO
LLO
WIN
G:
A)
THE
MA
INTE
NA
NC
E O
F A
DEQ
UA
TE
DA
YLIG
HT
AN
D S
UN
LIG
HT
INTO
AN
D
BET
WEE
N B
UIL
DIN
GS;
N
/A
To
be
repl
aced
by
deve
lopm
ent
cont
rol
polic
ies
DP
D
i) P
olic
y B
E12
exp
ands
on
poin
t B o
f par
t 1 p
olic
y S
TR6.
ii)
The
Com
mun
ity P
lan
does
not
say
any
thin
g sp
ecifi
c ab
out
cons
erva
tion
or th
e de
sign
qua
lity
of th
e bu
ilt e
nviro
nmen
t iii)
Pol
icy
BE
12 is
in g
ener
al c
onfo
rmity
with
pol
icy
4B.1
(des
ign
prin
cipl
es fo
r a c
ompa
ct c
ity) a
nd 4
B.5
(cre
atin
g an
incl
usiv
e en
viro
nmen
t) of
the
Lond
on P
lan.
iv
) N/A
v)
N/A
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
B)
THE
PRO
TEC
TIO
N O
F PR
IVA
CY;
C
) LA
YOU
T A
ND
AC
CES
S FO
R A
LL
USE
RS,
INC
LUD
ING
CO
NSI
DER
ATI
ON
OF
THE
NEE
DS
OF
PEO
PLE
WIT
H M
OB
ILIT
Y D
IFFI
CU
LTIE
S;
D)
AVO
IDA
NC
E O
F N
OIS
E, V
IBR
ATI
ON
A
ND
OTH
ER F
OR
MS
OF
POLL
UTI
ON
; E)
TH
E PR
OVI
SIO
N O
F A
DEQ
UA
TE O
FF
STR
EET
PAR
KIN
G;
F)
THE
PRO
VISI
ON
OF
AD
EQU
ATE
A
MEN
ITY
SPA
CE.
vi) T
his
polic
y is
a k
ey g
ener
ic d
esig
n po
licy
in th
e U
DP
. It
acco
rds
with
the
prin
cipl
es o
f PP
S1
rega
rdin
g go
od d
esig
n.
Oth
er U
DP
pol
icie
s re
gard
ing
desi
gn a
re p
ropo
sed
for d
elet
ion
on th
e ba
sis
that
gen
eric
des
ign
polic
ies
rem
ain
save
d.
Loca
tion
of B
uild
ing
Plan
t B
E13
NEW
DEV
ELO
PMEN
T SH
OU
LD B
E D
ESIG
NED
TO
CO
NC
EAL
UN
SIG
HTL
Y ST
RU
CTU
RES
SU
CH
AS
AIR
CO
ND
ITIO
NIN
G P
LAN
T, F
IRE
ESC
APE
STA
IRS
AN
D L
IFT
MO
TOR
RO
OM
S.
n/
a
N/
A
To b
e re
plac
ed b
y de
velo
pmen
t co
ntro
l po
licie
s D
PD
i) P
olic
y B
E13
exp
ands
on
poin
t B o
f par
t 1 p
olic
y S
TR6.
ii)
The
Com
mun
ity P
lan
does
not
say
any
thin
g sp
ecifi
c ab
out
cons
erva
tion
or th
e de
sign
qua
lity
of th
e bu
ilt e
nviro
nmen
t iii)
Pol
icy
BE
12 is
in g
ener
al c
onfo
rmity
with
pol
icy
4B.1
(des
ign
prin
cipl
es fo
r a c
ompa
ct c
ity)
iv) N
/A
v) N
/A
vi) T
his
polic
y is
nec
essa
ry g
iven
the
othe
r gen
eric
des
ign
polic
ies
do n
ot c
over
the
issu
e of
bui
ldin
g pl
ant.
This
pol
icy
acco
rds
with
the
prin
cipl
es o
f PP
S1
rega
rdin
g go
od d
esig
n, in
pa
rticu
lar K
ey P
rinci
ple
iv a
nd p
arag
raph
s 33
-39
but d
oes
not
repe
at n
atio
nal p
olic
y.
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
Hei
ght o
f Bui
ldin
gs
BE1
4 PR
OPO
SALS
WH
ICH
DO
NO
T R
ESPE
CT
THE
HEI
GH
T O
F SU
RR
OU
ND
ING
BU
ILD
ING
S W
ILL
NO
T B
E PE
RM
ITTE
D IN
CO
NSE
RVA
TIO
N
AR
EAS,
AR
EAS
OF
SPEC
IAL
CH
AR
AC
TER
A
ND
RES
IDEN
TIA
L A
REA
S. E
LSEW
HER
E SU
CH
DEV
ELO
PMEN
T W
ILL
ON
LY B
E C
ON
SID
ERED
IN E
XCEP
TIO
NA
L C
IRC
UM
STA
NC
ES, S
UC
H A
S W
HER
E IT
W
OU
LD P
RO
VID
E A
PO
SITI
VE A
ND
B
ENEF
ICIA
L VI
SUA
L FO
CU
S W
ITH
OU
T H
AR
MIN
G T
HE
LOC
AL
ENVI
RO
NM
ENT.
n/
a
N/
A
To b
e re
plac
ed b
y de
velo
pmen
t co
ntro
l po
licie
s D
PD
i) P
olic
y B
E14
exp
ands
on
poin
t A a
nd B
of p
art 1
pol
icy
STR
6.
ii) T
he C
omm
unity
Pla
n do
es n
ot s
ay a
nyth
ing
spec
ific
abou
t co
nser
vatio
n or
the
desi
gn q
ualit
y of
the
built
env
ironm
ent
iii) P
olic
y B
E 1
4 is
in g
ener
al c
onfo
rmity
with
Lon
don
Pla
n po
licy
4B.7
(Res
pect
loca
l con
text
and
com
mun
ities
) iv
) N/A
v)
N/A
vi
) Thi
s po
licy
is n
eces
sary
giv
en th
e ot
her g
ener
ic d
esig
n po
licie
s do
not
cov
er th
e is
sue
of b
uild
ing
heig
hts.
Th
is p
olic
y is
nec
essa
ry to
impl
emen
t Key
Prin
cipl
e iv
of P
PS
1 re
gard
ing
good
des
ign.
Safe
ty a
nd L
ight
ing
of P
ublic
Are
as
BE1
5 A
TH
E C
OU
NC
IL W
ILL
ENSU
RE
THA
T A
LL
NEW
DEV
ELO
PMEN
T IS
DES
IGN
ED T
O
PRO
MO
TE P
ERSO
NA
L SA
FETY
, PA
RTI
CU
LAR
LY F
OR
VU
LNER
AB
LE G
RO
UPS
, A
ND
TO
RED
UC
E TH
E R
ISK
AN
D F
EAR
OF
CR
IME.
DEV
ELO
PMEN
T W
HIC
H IS
LIK
ELY
TO
DEC
REA
SE P
ERSO
NA
L SA
FETY
WIL
L B
E R
ESIS
TED
. B
IN
CO
NSI
DER
ING
SC
HEM
ES
INVO
LVIN
G T
HE
LIG
HTI
NG
OF
EXTE
RN
AL
N
/A
To
be
repl
aced
by
deve
lopm
ent
cont
rol
polic
ies
DP
D
i) P
olic
y B
E15
exp
ands
on
poin
t B o
f par
t 1 p
olic
y S
TR6.
The
P
olic
y al
so c
ontri
bute
s to
the
deliv
ery
of K
ey O
bjec
tive
5 (s
afet
y an
d lig
htin
g) o
f the
Cou
ncil’s
Pol
icy
Pro
gram
me
2006
-10,
and
im
plem
ents
the
obje
ctiv
e in
the
Crim
e an
d D
isor
der S
trate
gy to
en
sure
crim
e is
take
n in
to a
ccou
nt in
the
desi
gn o
f new
bu
ildin
gs.
ii) T
his
polic
y he
lps
deliv
er c
omm
unity
saf
ety
obje
ctiv
es in
ch
apte
r 2 o
f the
com
mun
ity p
lan.
iii)
BE
15 is
gen
eral
con
form
ity w
ith L
ondo
n P
lan
polic
y 4B
.1
(des
ign
prin
cipl
es fo
r a c
ompa
ct c
ity)
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
AR
EAS,
TH
E C
OU
NC
IL W
ILL
HA
VE R
EGA
RD
TO
AC
HIE
VIN
G A
CC
EPTA
BLE
LEV
ELS
OF
ILLU
MIN
ATI
ON
IN O
RD
ER T
O E
NSU
RE
SAFE
TY, A
ND
TO
TH
E A
PPEA
RA
NC
E O
F TH
E FI
TTIN
GS.
AC
CO
UN
T W
ILL
ALS
O B
E TA
KEN
O
F TH
E EF
FIC
IEN
T U
SE O
F EN
ERG
Y A
ND
TH
E N
EED
TO
AVO
ID G
LAR
E.
iv) N
/A
v) N
/A
vi) T
his
polic
y is
nec
essa
ry g
iven
the
othe
r gen
eric
des
ign
polic
ies
do n
ot c
over
the
issu
e of
crim
e an
d sa
fety
. Th
is p
olic
y ac
cord
s w
ith th
e pr
inci
ples
of P
PS
1 re
gard
ing
good
de
sign
, in
parti
cula
r Key
Prin
cipl
e iv
and
par
agra
phs
16 (p
oint
5)
, 27
(poi
nt ii
i) an
d 33
-39.
Des
ign
of N
ew S
hopf
ront
s B
E16
IN A
LL P
RO
POSA
LS F
OR
NEW
SH
OPF
RO
NTS
, TH
E C
OU
NC
IL W
ILL
REQ
UIR
E A
HIG
H
STA
ND
AR
D O
F D
ESIG
N W
ITH
TH
E U
SE O
F G
OO
D Q
UA
LITY
MA
TER
IALS
AN
D A
REG
AR
D
TO T
HE
REL
ATI
ON
SHIP
WIT
H N
EAR
BY
SHO
PFR
ON
TS.
n/
a
N/
A
To b
e re
plac
ed b
y de
velo
pmen
t co
ntro
l po
licie
s D
PD
i) P
olic
y B
E16
exp
ands
on
poin
t B o
f par
t 1 p
olic
y S
TR6.
ii)
The
Com
mun
ity P
lan
does
not
say
any
thin
g sp
ecifi
c ab
out
cons
erva
tion
or th
e de
sign
qua
lity
of th
e bu
ilt e
nviro
nmen
t iii)
Pol
icy
BE
16 is
in g
ener
al c
onfo
rmity
Lon
don
Pla
n po
licie
s 3D
.1 (S
uppo
rting
tow
n ce
ntre
s) a
nd 3
D.3
(mai
ntai
ning
and
im
prov
ing
reta
il fa
cilit
ies)
. iv
) N/A
v)
N/A
vi
) Thi
s po
licy
is n
eces
sary
giv
en th
e ot
her g
ener
ic d
esig
n po
licie
s do
not
cov
er th
e is
sue
of s
hop
front
s. Im
porta
ntly
the
Cou
ncil
has
prep
ared
an
SP
D o
n S
hopf
ront
s an
d S
hops
igns
D
esig
n ad
opte
d Ju
ly 2
005
whi
ch s
uppo
rts p
olic
y B
E16
. Th
e lo
ss o
f Pol
icy
BE
16 w
ould
pre
sum
ably
mea
n th
e C
ounc
il co
uld
no lo
nger
app
ly th
is u
p to
dat
e S
PD
. P
olic
y B
E16
follo
ws
the
prin
cipl
es s
et o
ut in
PP
G19
Out
door
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
adve
rtise
men
t con
trol a
nd a
ccor
ds w
ith th
e pr
inci
ples
of P
PS
1 re
gard
ing
good
des
ign,
in p
artic
ular
Key
Prin
cipl
e iv
and
pa
ragr
aphs
33-
39.
A
reas
of A
rcha
eolo
gica
l Sig
nific
ance
B
E19
(A)
WH
ERE
DEV
ELO
PMEN
T PR
OPO
SALS
A
FFEC
T K
NO
WN
AR
EAS
OF
AR
CH
AEO
LOG
ICA
L SI
GN
IFIC
AN
CE,
AS
IDEN
TIFI
ED O
N T
HE
PRO
POSA
LS M
AP,
TH
E C
OU
NC
IL W
ILL
EXPE
CT
PRO
VISI
ON
TO
BE
MA
DE
FOR
A S
ITE
EVA
LUA
TIO
N, W
HER
E R
EQU
IRED
, BY
AN
AR
CH
AEO
LOG
ICA
L O
RG
AN
ISA
TIO
N A
PPR
OVE
D B
Y TH
E LO
CA
L PL
AN
NIN
G A
UTH
OR
ITY
PRIO
R T
O T
HE
DET
ERM
INA
TIO
N O
F PL
AN
NIN
G
APP
LIC
ATI
ON
S;
(B)
WH
ERE
EVA
LUA
TIO
N P
RO
VES
THE
EXIS
TEN
CE
OF
AR
CH
AEO
LOG
ICA
L R
EMA
INS,
TH
E FO
LLO
WIN
G A
PPR
OPR
IATE
AC
TIO
N W
ILL
APP
LY:
(i)
FOR
REM
AIN
S O
F M
AJO
R
AR
CH
AEO
LOG
ICA
L IM
POR
TAN
CE,
TH
E C
OU
NC
IL W
ILL
EXPE
CT
PRO
VISI
ON
TO
BE
MA
DE
FOR
PR
ESER
VATI
ON
IN S
ITU
AN
D W
ILL
CO
NSI
DER
TH
E N
EED
FO
R S
TATU
TOR
Y PR
OTE
CTI
ON
OF
MO
NU
MEN
TS O
F N
ATI
ON
AL
IMPO
RTA
NC
E;
n/
a
N/
A
To b
e re
plac
ed b
y de
velo
pmen
t co
ntro
l po
licie
s D
PD
i) P
olic
y B
E19
exp
ands
on
poin
t A o
f par
t 1 p
olic
y S
TR6.
ii)
The
Com
mun
ity P
lan
does
not
say
any
thin
g sp
ecifi
c ab
out
cons
erva
tion
or th
e de
sign
qua
lity
of th
e bu
ilt e
nviro
nmen
t iii
) Thi
s po
licy
is in
gen
eral
con
form
ity w
ith P
olic
y 4B
.14
(Arc
haeo
logy
) of t
he L
ondo
n P
lan
whi
ch re
quire
s bo
roug
hs h
ave
polic
ies
for p
rote
ctin
g ar
chae
olog
ical
ass
ets.
iv
) N/A
v)
N/A
vi
) Pol
icy
BE
19 is
nec
essa
ry to
impl
emen
t the
requ
irem
ents
of
PP
G 1
6, in
par
ticul
ar p
arag
raph
15
whi
ch s
tate
s th
at “
Det
aile
d de
velo
pmen
t pla
ns (i
e lo
cal p
lans
and
uni
tary
dev
elop
men
t pl
ans)
sho
uld
incl
ude
polic
ies
for t
he p
rote
ctio
n, e
nhan
cem
ent
and
pres
erva
tion
of s
ites
of a
rcha
eolo
gica
l int
eres
t and
of t
heir
setti
ngs”
Th
is p
olic
y ac
cord
s w
ith th
e ad
vice
giv
en a
t par
agra
ph 2
0 (p
oint
2)
of P
PS
1.
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
(ii)
FOR
OTH
ER R
EMA
INS
OF
AR
CH
AEO
LOG
ICA
L IM
POR
TAN
CE,
A F
ULL
A
RC
HA
EOLO
GIC
AL
EXC
AVA
TIO
N W
ILL
BE
REQ
UIR
ED P
RIO
R T
O A
NY
DEV
ELO
PMEN
T.
WH
ERE
THER
E A
RE
REA
SON
AB
LE G
RO
UN
DS
TO S
USP
ECT
THA
T A
RC
HA
EOLO
GIC
AL
REM
AIN
S M
AY
EXIS
T IN
OTH
ER A
REA
S, T
HE
PRO
VISI
ON
S M
AD
E U
ND
ER (A
) AN
D (B
) WIL
L B
E A
PPLI
ED.
Anc
ient
Mon
umen
ts
BE2
0 TH
E C
OU
NC
IL W
ILL
ENC
OU
RA
GE
THE
PRES
ERVA
TIO
N A
ND
MA
INTE
NA
NC
E O
F A
NC
IEN
T M
ON
UM
ENTS
AN
D W
ILL
NO
T PE
RM
IT D
EVEL
OPM
ENT
LIK
ELY
TO
AD
VER
SELY
AFF
ECT
THEI
R S
ETTI
NG
. TH
E C
OU
NC
IL W
ILL
ENC
OU
RA
GE
THE
ENH
AN
CEM
ENT
OF
THE
AM
ENIT
Y VA
LUE
OF
HIS
TOR
IC S
ITES
.
n/
a
N/
A
To b
e re
plac
ed b
y de
velo
pmen
t co
ntro
l po
licie
s D
PD
i) Th
is p
olic
y ex
pand
s on
poi
nt A
of p
olic
y S
TR 6
(see
abo
ve).
ii) T
he C
omm
unity
Pla
n do
es n
ot s
ay a
nyth
ing
spec
ific
abou
t co
nser
vatio
n or
the
desi
gn q
ualit
y of
the
built
env
ironm
ent
iii) T
his
polic
y is
in g
ener
al c
onfo
rmity
with
Pol
icy
4B.1
4 (A
rcha
eolo
gy) o
f the
Lon
don
Pla
n w
hich
requ
ires
boro
ughs
hav
e po
licie
s fo
r pro
tect
ing
sche
dule
d an
cien
t mon
umen
ts.
iv) N
/A
v) N
/A
vi) A
pol
icy
on a
ncie
nt m
onum
ents
is re
quire
d by
the
Lond
on
Pla
n P
olic
y 4B
.14
Arc
haeo
logy
and
PP
G16
Arc
haeo
logy
and
P
lann
ing
Pede
stria
n En
viro
nmen
t B
E22
N
/A
To
be
repl
aced
by
core
stra
tegy
i) P
olic
y B
E22
exp
ands
on
poin
t B o
f par
t 1 p
olic
y S
TR6.
ii)
Thi
s ap
proa
ch h
as re
gard
to O
bjec
tive
2 of
the
Cou
ncil’s
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
THE
CO
UN
CIL
WIL
L EN
CO
UR
AG
E TH
E C
REA
TIO
N O
F A
PPR
OPR
IATE
PE
DES
TRIA
NIS
ED R
OU
TES
AN
D A
REA
S, A
ND
TH
E EN
HA
NC
EMEN
T O
F TH
OSE
ALR
EAD
Y EX
ISTI
NG
. IN
PA
RTI
CU
LAR
, TH
E C
OU
NC
IL
WIL
L:
(i)
ENC
OU
RA
GE
PRO
VISI
ON
OF
ATT
RA
CTI
VE S
PAC
ES, P
AR
TIC
ULA
RLY
IN
KIN
GST
ON
TO
WN
CEN
TRE
AN
D T
HE
DIS
TRIC
T C
ENTR
ES, S
UIT
AB
LE F
OR
PED
ESTR
IAN
S,
WIT
H S
EATI
NG
, STR
EET
ENTE
RTA
INM
ENT,
ET
C;
(ii)
SEEK
TH
E PR
OVI
SIO
N IN
A
PPR
OPR
IATE
NEW
DEV
ELO
PMEN
TS O
F A
DEQ
UA
TE P
EDES
TRIA
N A
CC
ESS
AN
D
CIR
CU
LATI
ON
SPA
CE,
INC
LUD
ING
A
PPR
OPR
IATE
UPG
RA
DIN
G O
F A
NY
EXIS
TIN
G
AD
JAC
ENT
FOO
TWA
YS O
R F
OO
TPA
THS
AN
D
SUIT
AB
LE F
AC
ILIT
IES
FOR
PEO
PLE
WIT
H
DIS
AB
ILIT
IES;
(ii
i) IN
EXI
STIN
G A
REA
S O
F PE
DES
TRIA
N
AC
TIVI
TY, S
EEK
TO
IMPR
OVE
TH
E A
PPEA
RA
NC
E O
F H
AR
D S
UR
FAC
ES A
ND
IN
TRO
DU
CE
SOFT
LA
ND
SCA
PIN
G W
HER
E A
PPR
OPR
IATE
; (iv
) W
HER
E R
ELEV
AN
T, S
EEK
TO
EN
SUR
E TH
AT
STR
EET
FUR
NIT
UR
E PR
OPO
SED
IS O
F G
OO
D D
ESIG
N A
ND
WEL
L LO
CA
TED
, IN
O
RD
ER T
O A
VOID
CLU
TTER
OR
IMPE
DIN
G
and/
or
deve
lopm
ent
cont
rol
polic
ies
DP
D
Com
mun
ity P
lan
Tran
spor
t cha
pter
whi
ch s
eeks
to p
rom
ote
wal
king
faci
litie
s. T
he p
olic
y al
so c
ontri
bute
s to
the
deliv
ery
of
Key
Obj
ectiv
e 7
(opt
ions
for t
rave
l) an
d K
ey O
bjec
tive
12 (T
he
Bes
t Pla
ce to
Liv
e) o
f the
cou
ncil’s
cor
pora
te P
olic
y P
rogr
amm
e 20
06-2
010.
iii)
Pol
icy
BE
22 is
in g
ener
al c
onfo
rmity
with
Lon
don
Pla
n po
licy
3C.2
0 w
hich
see
ks to
ens
ure
that
loca
l pla
ns in
clud
e po
licie
s to
im
prov
e co
nditi
ons
for w
alki
ng a
nd p
edes
trian
acc
ess
and
with
po
licy
4B.4
whi
ch s
eeks
to e
nhan
ce th
e qu
ality
of t
he p
ublic
re
alm
. iv
) N/A
v)
N/A
vi
) Thi
s po
licy
is n
eces
sary
to c
over
the
rang
e of
issu
es
asso
ciat
ed w
ith th
e pe
dest
rian
envi
ronm
ent.
Oth
er p
olic
ies
such
as
thos
e fo
r Kin
gsto
n To
wn
Cen
tre a
re p
ropo
sed
for d
elet
ion
on
the
basi
s th
at th
is b
orou
gh-w
ide
polic
y re
mai
ns s
aved
.
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
PED
ESTR
IAN
MO
VEM
ENT;
(v
) SE
EK A
ND
EN
SUR
E TH
E A
DEQ
UA
TE
ILLU
MIN
ATI
ON
OF
PED
ESTR
IAN
RO
UTE
S A
ND
A
REA
S.
Art
in N
ew D
evel
opm
ent
BE2
3 TH
E C
OU
NC
IL W
ILL
ENC
OU
RA
GE
DEV
ELO
PER
S IN
KIN
GST
ON
TO
WN
CEN
TRE,
TH
E D
ISTR
ICT
CEN
TRES
AN
D O
THER
A
PPR
OPR
IATE
LO
CA
TIO
NS
TO P
RO
VID
E O
R
CO
NTR
IBU
TE T
O A
RT
IN T
HE
ENVI
RO
NM
ENT
AS
A C
OM
PON
ENT
WIT
HIN
TH
EIR
D
EVEL
OPM
ENT
PRO
POSA
L, E
ITH
ER IN
TH
E D
ESIG
N O
F N
EW B
UIL
DIN
GS
OR
IN P
UB
LIC
SP
AC
E A
RO
UN
D T
HE
BU
ILD
ING
S.
N
/A
To
be
repl
aced
by
core
stra
tegy
an
d/or
de
velo
pmen
t co
ntro
l po
licie
s D
PD
i) P
olic
y B
E22
exp
ands
on
poin
t B o
f par
t 1 p
olic
y S
TR6.
ii)
The
Com
mun
ity P
lan
does
not
say
any
thin
g sp
ecifi
c ab
out
cons
erva
tion
or th
e de
sign
qua
lity
of th
e bu
ilt e
nviro
nmen
t iii)
Thi
s pr
inci
ple
of th
is p
olic
y is
in g
ener
al c
onfo
rmity
with
pol
icy
3D.4
of t
he L
ondo
n P
lan
whi
ch e
ncou
rage
s lo
cal a
utho
ritie
s to
co
nsid
er ‘p
erce
nt fo
r art’
sch
emes
. Par
agra
phs
5.11
7-5.
121
of
the
May
or’s
Cul
tura
l Stra
tegy
for L
ondo
n di
scus
s th
e im
porta
nce
and
bene
fits
of a
rt of
in th
e pu
blic
real
m.
iv) N
/A
v) N
/A
vi) T
his
polic
y is
nec
essa
ry to
add
a s
patia
l dim
ensi
on a
t the
bo
roug
h le
vel t
o th
e M
ayor
’s p
olic
ies
enco
urag
ing
art w
ithin
new
de
velo
pmen
ts.
The
Gre
en B
elt
OL1
EX
CEP
T IN
VER
Y SP
ECIA
L C
IRC
UM
STA
NC
ES
APP
RO
VAL
WIL
L N
OT
BE
GIV
EN F
OR
D
EVEL
OPM
ENT
(OTH
ER T
HA
N T
HE
CH
AN
GE
OF
USE
OF
AN
EXI
STIN
G B
UIL
DIN
G) W
ITH
IN
To
be
repl
aced
in
the
core
st
rate
gy
and/
or
deve
lopm
ent
cont
rol D
PD
i) P
olic
y O
L1 a
dds
deta
il to
the
cent
ral s
trate
gy p
rovi
ded
by U
DP
pa
rt1 P
olic
y S
TR7
(saf
egua
rdin
g an
d en
hanc
ing
open
land
). ii)
Pol
icy
OL1
is o
ne o
f the
pla
nnin
g de
liver
y m
echa
nism
s fo
r the
ov
erar
chin
g en
viro
nmen
tal o
bjec
tive
of K
ings
ton’
s C
omm
unity
P
lan
(200
4-20
09) “
…to
live
saf
e, h
ealth
y, re
war
ding
live
s, w
ith
acce
ss to
an
undi
min
ishe
d na
tura
l env
ironm
ent,
whi
le p
rote
ctin
g
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
THE
GR
EEN
BEL
T, A
S D
EFIN
ED O
N T
HE
PRO
POSA
LS M
AP,
FO
R P
UR
POSE
S O
THER
TH
AN
:- 1.
A
GR
ICU
LTU
RE
AN
D F
OR
ESTR
Y;
2.
OU
TDO
OR
SPO
RT;
3.
C
EMET
ERIE
S;
4.
APP
RO
PRIA
TE R
ESID
ENTI
AL
INFI
LL
DEV
ELO
PMEN
T O
R A
MO
DES
T EX
TEN
SIO
N
WH
ICH
DO
ES N
OT
CH
AN
GE
THE
SCA
LE O
F A
N
EXIS
TIN
G P
RO
PER
TY A
ND
WH
ERE
NO
MO
RE
THA
N 2
5% O
F TH
E PL
OT
IS D
EVEL
OPE
D IN
TH
E FO
RM
OF
BU
ILD
ING
S, G
AR
AG
ES A
ND
H
AR
DST
AN
DIN
GS;
O
THER
USE
S W
HIC
H A
RE
OPE
N IN
C
HA
RA
CTE
R A
ND
APP
RO
PRIA
TE T
O A
RU
RA
L A
REA
.
the
futu
re w
ell-b
eing
of o
ther
s.”
With
rega
rd to
the
loca
l en
viro
nmen
t, th
e co
mm
unity
pla
n ob
ject
ive
is “t
o sa
fegu
ard
and
enha
nce
the
Bor
ough
’s lo
cal e
nviro
nmen
t, en
ablin
g de
velo
pmen
t to
mee
t the
nee
ds o
f res
iden
ts w
ithou
t un
derm
inin
g th
e va
lue
or v
iabi
lity
of th
e na
tura
l env
ironm
ent.”
iii
) Thi
s po
licy
is in
gen
eral
con
form
ity w
ith L
ondo
n P
lan
polic
y 3D
.8 G
reen
Bel
t whi
ch s
eeks
to m
aint
ain
the
prot
ectio
n of
Lo
ndon
’s G
reen
Bel
t iv
) N/A
v)
Gre
en B
elt p
olic
y se
eks
to c
onse
rve
the
open
nat
ure
of th
e co
untry
side
aro
und
the
city
. vi
) The
pol
icy
follo
ws
the
guid
ance
in P
PG 2
, whi
ch s
tate
s th
at
‘up-
to-d
ate
appr
oved
bou
ndar
ies
are
esse
ntia
l, to
pro
vide
ce
rtain
ty a
s to
whe
re G
reen
Bel
t pol
icie
s do
and
do
not a
pply
an
d to
ena
ble
the
prop
er c
onsi
dera
tion
of fu
ture
dev
elop
men
t op
tions
’. P
PG
2 al
so re
quire
s de
velo
pmen
t pla
ns to
mak
e cl
ear
the
appr
oach
that
the
auth
ority
will
take
with
rega
rd to
the
acce
ptab
ility
of re
plac
emen
t dw
ellin
gs.
This
poi
nt is
cov
ered
in
the
supp
ortin
g te
xt to
this
UD
P p
olic
y, p
arag
raph
7.1
8. T
he
supp
ortin
g te
xt o
f pol
icy
OL1
is a
lso
whe
re th
e co
unci
l def
ines
w
here
it c
onsi
ders
‘inf
ill’ d
evel
opm
ent t
o be
app
ropr
iate
and
the
loca
tions
whe
re it
is n
ot a
ccep
tabl
e.
R
euse
of B
uild
ings
in th
e G
reen
Bel
t
OL2
To b
e re
plac
ed in
i)
Pol
icy
STR
7 S
afeg
uard
ing
and
Enh
anci
ng O
pen
Land
pr
ovid
es th
e ce
ntra
l stra
tegy
for p
olic
y O
L2.
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
THE
CO
UN
CIL
WIL
L O
NLY
PER
MIT
PR
OPO
SALS
FO
R T
HE
CH
AN
GE
OF
USE
OF
BU
ILD
ING
S IN
TH
E G
REE
N B
ELT
WH
ERE:
1.
TH
E R
EUSE
WO
ULD
NO
T LE
AD
TO
TH
E U
NA
CC
EPTA
BLE
APP
EAR
AN
CE
OR
USE
OF
LAN
D A
DJA
CEN
T O
R A
NC
ILLA
RY
TO S
UC
H
BU
ILD
ING
S O
R T
O T
HE
UN
AC
CEP
TAB
LE
EXTE
NSI
ON
OF
THE
BU
ILD
ING
; 2.
A
BU
ILD
ING
IS O
F PE
RM
AN
ENT
AN
D
SUB
STA
NTI
AL
CO
NST
RU
CTI
ON
AN
D IS
C
APA
BLE
OF
CO
NVE
RSI
ON
WIT
HO
UT
MA
JOR
O
R C
OM
PLET
E R
ECO
NST
RU
CTI
ON
; 3.
TH
E N
EW U
SE W
OU
LD N
OT
HA
VE A
M
ATE
RIA
LLY
GR
EATE
R IM
PAC
T TH
AN
TH
E EX
ISTI
NG
ON
E O
N T
HE
OPE
NN
ESS
OF
THE
GR
EEN
BEL
T A
ND
TH
E PU
RPO
SES
OF
INC
LUD
ING
LA
ND
IN IT
; 4.
TH
E U
SE IS
NO
T O
F A
RES
IDEN
TIA
L N
ATU
RE
UN
LESS
OTH
ER U
SES
AR
E IM
PRA
CTI
CA
L O
R U
NA
CC
EPTA
BLE
. IN
GR
AN
TIN
G P
ERM
ISSI
ON
FO
R T
HE
USE
OF
AG
RIC
ULT
UR
AL
BU
ILD
ING
S FO
R N
ON
-A
GR
ICU
LTU
RA
L PU
RPO
SES,
TH
E C
OU
NC
IL
WIL
L N
OR
MA
LLY
ATT
AC
H A
N A
PPR
OPR
IATE
C
ON
DIT
ION
WIT
HD
RA
WIN
G F
UR
THER
R
ELEV
AN
T PE
RM
ITTE
D D
EVEL
OPM
ENT
RIG
HTS
.
the
core
st
rate
gy
and/
or
deve
lopm
ent
cont
rol D
PD
ii) P
olic
y O
L2 is
con
sist
ent w
ith th
e co
mm
unity
pla
n ob
ject
ive
“to
safe
guar
d an
d en
hanc
e th
e B
orou
gh’s
loca
l env
ironm
ent,
enab
ling
deve
lopm
ent t
o m
eet t
he n
eeds
of r
esid
ents
with
out
unde
rmin
ing
the
valu
e or
via
bilit
y of
the
natu
ral e
nviro
nmen
t.”
iii) T
his
polic
y is
in g
ener
al c
onfo
rmity
with
the
Lond
on P
lan
polic
y 3D
.8 G
reen
Bel
t - th
ere
is a
gen
eral
pre
sum
ptio
n ag
ains
t de
velo
pmen
t in
the
Gre
en B
elt,
such
dev
elop
men
t sho
uld
not b
e ap
prov
ed e
xcep
t in
very
spe
cial
circ
umst
ance
s.
vi
) N/A
v)
Gre
en B
elt p
olic
y se
eks
to c
onse
rve
the
open
nat
ure
of th
e co
untry
side
aro
und
the
city
. vi
) In
acco
rdan
ce w
ith P
PG
2, p
olic
y O
L2 p
rovi
des
the
Cou
ncil’s
pe
rspe
ctiv
e on
the
re-u
se o
f bui
ldin
gs in
the
gree
n be
lt, h
avin
g re
gard
to th
e re
quire
men
ts in
par
agra
ph’s
3.7
, 3.8
and
3.9
and
A
nnex
D o
f PP
G2.
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
Agr
icul
ture
in th
e G
reen
Bel
t O
L3
IN C
ON
SID
ERIN
G A
PPLI
CA
TIO
NS
ON
EXI
STIN
G
AG
RIC
ULT
UR
AL
LAN
D W
ITH
IN T
HE
GR
EEN
B
ELT
THE
CO
UN
CIL
WIL
L H
AVE
REG
AR
D T
O :
A.
THE
QU
ALI
TY O
F A
GR
ICU
LTU
RA
L LA
ND
; B
. TH
E EF
FIC
IEN
CY
AN
D U
PKEE
P O
F A
GR
ICU
LTU
RA
L H
OLD
ING
S C
. TH
E LO
CA
TIO
N A
ND
DES
IGN
OF
AG
RIC
ULT
UR
AL
BU
ILD
ING
S, A
ND
WH
ERE
NEC
ESSA
RY
THE
NEE
D T
O A
TTA
CH
A
GR
ICU
LTU
RA
L O
CC
UPA
NC
Y C
ON
DIT
ION
S.
IN C
ON
SID
ERIN
G A
PPLI
CA
TIO
NS
ON
LA
ND
A
DJA
CEN
T TO
AG
RIC
ULT
UR
AL
LAN
D T
HE
CO
UN
CIL
WIL
L H
AVE
REG
AR
D T
O A
NY
AD
VER
SE E
FFEC
TS O
N T
HE
EFFI
CIE
NC
Y A
ND
U
PKEE
P O
F A
GR
ICU
LTU
RA
L H
OLD
ING
S.
WH
ERE
AG
RIC
ULT
UR
AL
USE
IS N
O L
ON
GER
VI
AB
LE IN
TH
E EV
ENT
OF
NEW
TR
AN
SPO
RT
INFR
AST
RU
CTU
RE,
A C
HA
NG
E TO
PR
EDO
MIN
AN
TLY
DEC
IDU
OU
S W
OO
DLA
ND
A
ND
OPE
N G
RA
SSLA
ND
WIT
H P
UB
LIC
A
CC
ESS
WIL
L B
E EN
CO
UR
AG
ED, S
UB
JEC
T TO
TH
E N
EED
TO
PR
OTE
CT
ATT
RA
CTI
VE
VIST
AS
OF
OPE
N L
AN
D A
ND
VA
LUA
BLE
W
ILD
LIFE
HA
BIT
ATS
.
To
be
repl
aced
in
the
core
st
rate
gy
and/
or
deve
lopm
ent
cont
rol D
PD
i) P
olic
y S
TR7
Saf
egua
rdin
g an
d E
nhan
cing
Ope
n La
nd
prov
ides
the
cent
ral s
trate
gy fo
r pol
icy
OL3
ii)
Pol
icy
OL3
con
tribu
tes
tow
ards
the
deliv
ery
of th
e C
omm
unity
P
lan
obje
ctiv
e “to
saf
egua
rd a
nd e
nhan
ce th
e B
orou
gh’s
loca
l en
viro
nmen
t, en
ablin
g de
velo
pmen
t to
mee
t the
nee
ds o
f re
side
nts
with
out u
nder
min
ing
the
valu
e or
via
bilit
y of
the
natu
ral
envi
ronm
ent.”
iii
) Lon
don
Pla
n po
licy
3D.1
4 en
cour
ages
and
sup
ports
a th
rivin
g ag
ricul
tura
l sec
tor i
n Lo
ndon
. P
olic
ies
shou
ld p
rovi
de fo
r the
pr
otec
tion
of th
e be
st a
nd m
ost v
ersa
tile
agric
ultu
ral l
and
in
acco
rdan
ce w
ith n
atio
nal g
uida
nce.
Pol
icy
OL3
has
rega
rd to
th
e ag
ricul
tura
l qua
lity
of la
nd a
nd d
eliv
ers
the
prin
cipl
es o
f thi
s re
gion
al p
olic
y.
iv
) N/A
v)
The
Gre
en b
elt i
s an
are
a fo
r con
serv
atio
n of
the
open
ch
arac
ter.
vi) P
PG
2 st
ates
that
one
of t
he G
reen
Bel
t’s o
bjec
tives
is to
re
tain
land
in a
gric
ultu
ral,
fore
stry
and
rela
ted
uses
(par
agra
ph
1.6)
. P
olic
y O
L3 re
late
s to
the
agric
ultu
ral l
and
with
in th
e G
reen
B
elt.
PP
S7
reco
gnis
es th
e im
porta
nt a
nd v
arie
d ro
le o
f ag
ricul
ture
and
sta
tes
that
this
role
sho
uld
be re
cogn
ised
by
plan
ning
pol
icie
s (p
ara
27).
Agr
icul
tura
l use
s an
d fa
rm
dive
rsifi
catio
n sh
ould
be
give
n fa
vour
able
con
side
ratio
n in
the
Gre
en B
elt (
para
30
iii).
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
Met
ropo
litan
Ope
n La
nd
OL4
EX
CEP
T IN
VER
Y SP
ECIA
L C
IRC
UM
STA
NC
ES
APP
RO
VAL
WIL
L N
OT
BE
GIV
EN F
OR
D
EVEL
OPM
ENT
WIT
HIN
MET
RO
POLI
TAN
OPE
N
LAN
D, A
S D
EFIN
ED O
N T
HE
PRO
POSA
LS M
AP,
FO
R P
UR
POSE
S O
THER
TH
AN
:- 1.
A
GR
ICU
LTU
RE,
WO
OD
LAN
DS,
O
RC
HA
RD
S, A
LLO
TMEN
TS A
ND
NU
RSE
RY
GA
RD
ENS;
2.
PA
RK
S, O
PEN
SPA
CES
, NA
TUR
E C
ON
SER
VATI
ON
AN
D O
UTD
OO
R S
POR
T;
3.
CEM
ETER
IES;
4.
O
THER
APP
RO
PRIA
TE U
SES
WH
ICH
A
RE
OPE
N IN
CH
AR
AC
TER
.
To
be
repl
aced
in
the
core
st
rate
gy
and/
or
deve
lopm
ent
cont
rol D
PD
i) P
olic
y S
TR7
Saf
egua
rdin
g an
d E
nhan
cing
Ope
n La
nd
prov
ides
the
cent
ral s
trate
gy
ii) P
olic
y O
L4 c
ontri
bute
s to
war
ds th
e de
liver
y of
Kin
gsto
n’s
Com
mun
ity P
lan
obje
ctiv
e “to
saf
egua
rd a
nd e
nhan
ce th
e B
orou
gh’s
loca
l env
ironm
ent,
enab
ling
deve
lopm
ent t
o m
eet t
he
need
s of
resi
dent
s w
ithou
t und
erm
inin
g th
e va
lue
or v
iabi
lity
of
the
natu
ral e
nviro
nmen
t.”
iii) P
olic
y O
L4 is
in g
ener
al c
onfo
rmity
with
the
Lond
on P
lan
polic
y 3D
.9 M
OL
“..en
sure
that
aut
horit
ies
mai
ntai
n th
e pr
otec
tion
of M
OL
from
inap
prop
riate
dev
elop
men
t”. M
OL
shou
ld b
e af
ford
ed th
e sa
me
leve
l of p
rote
ctio
n as
Gre
en B
elt
and
cont
rolle
d in
line
with
PP
G2.
iv) N
/A
v) M
OL
is a
n ar
ea w
here
con
serv
atio
n of
the
open
cha
ract
er is
pa
ram
ount
. vi
) The
pol
icy
is n
eces
sary
in o
rder
for t
he p
ropo
sals
map
to
desi
gnat
e th
e M
OL
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith L
ondo
n P
lan.
The
Lo
ndon
pla
n st
ates
that
bor
ough
s de
fine
the
boun
darie
s an
d al
tera
tions
are
und
erta
ken
thro
ugh
the
UD
P p
roce
ss. P
olic
y O
L4
supp
ortin
g te
xt p
rovi
des
the
just
ifica
tion
for t
he d
esig
natio
ns a
nd
wha
t use
s ar
e de
emed
app
ropr
iate
in s
peci
fic a
reas
.
New
Bui
ldin
gs in
the
Gre
en B
elt a
nd
Met
ropo
litan
Ope
n La
nd
To
be
repl
aced
in
i) P
olic
y S
TR7
Saf
egua
rdin
g an
d E
nhan
cing
Ope
n La
nd
prov
ides
the
cent
ral s
trate
gy
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
OL5
N
EW B
UIL
DIN
GS
WIT
HIN
, AB
UTT
ING
, OR
C
LEA
RLY
VIS
IBLE
FR
OM
TH
E G
REE
N B
ELT
AN
D A
REA
S O
F M
ETR
OPO
LITA
N O
PEN
LA
ND
SH
OU
LD:-
(A)
RES
PEC
T TH
E SE
TTIN
G IN
SC
ALE
, FO
RM
AN
D D
ESIG
N;
(B)
PRO
VID
E A
HIG
H S
TAN
DA
RD
OF
LAN
DSC
API
NG
, ESP
ECIA
LLY
WH
ERE
THIS
PR
OVI
DES
A B
ETTE
R D
EFIN
ITIO
N T
O T
HE
BO
UN
DA
RY
BET
WEE
N T
HE
BU
ILT
UP
AN
D
OPE
N A
REA
S;
(C)
AC
CO
MM
OD
ATE
AN
CIL
LAR
Y U
SES
SUC
H A
S C
AR
PA
RK
ING
WIT
H P
AR
TIC
ULA
R
CA
RE.
the
core
st
rate
gy
and/
or
deve
lopm
ent
cont
rol D
PD
ii) P
olic
y O
L5 c
ontri
bute
s to
war
ds th
e de
liver
y of
Kin
gsto
n’s
Com
mun
ity P
lan
obje
ctiv
e “to
saf
egua
rd a
nd e
nhan
ce th
e B
orou
gh’s
loca
l env
ironm
ent,
enab
ling
deve
lopm
ent t
o m
eet t
he
need
s of
resi
dent
s w
ithou
t und
erm
inin
g th
e va
lue
or v
iabi
lity
of
the
natu
ral e
nviro
nmen
t.”
iii) P
olic
y O
L5 is
in g
ener
al c
onfo
rmity
with
the
Lond
on P
lan
polic
y 3D
.9 M
OL
and
polic
y 3D
.14
Gre
en B
elts
. iv
) N/A
v)
MO
L an
d gr
een
belt
are
area
s w
here
con
serv
atio
n of
the
open
cha
ract
er is
par
amou
nt.
vi) P
olic
y O
L5 p
rovi
des
the
loca
l jus
tific
atio
n in
acc
orda
nce
with
pa
ragr
aph
3.4
and
3.6
of P
PG
2 fo
r new
bui
ldin
gs w
ithin
K
ings
ton’
s G
reen
Bel
t and
MO
L.
Stab
les,
Rid
ing
Scho
ols
and
Oth
er S
imila
r Es
tabl
ishm
ents
O
L12
STA
BLE
S, S
HEL
TER
S, R
IDIN
G S
CH
OO
LS A
ND
O
THER
EST
AB
LISH
MEN
TS A
SSO
CIA
TED
WIT
H
THE
KEE
PIN
G O
R R
IDIN
G O
F H
OR
SES
WIL
L O
NLY
BE
PER
MIT
TED
WH
ERE
IT C
AN
BE
DEM
ON
STR
ATE
D T
HA
T TH
E PR
OPO
SAL
WIL
L N
OT:
-
x
D
evel
opm
ent
cont
rol D
PD
i) P
olic
y S
TR7
Saf
egua
rdin
g an
d E
nhan
cing
Ope
n La
nd
prov
ides
the
cent
ral s
trate
gy
ii) P
olic
y O
L12
cont
ribut
es to
war
ds th
e de
liver
y of
Kin
gsto
n’s
Com
mun
ity P
lan
obje
ctiv
e “to
saf
egua
rd a
nd e
nhan
ce th
e B
orou
gh’s
loca
l env
ironm
ent,
enab
ling
deve
lopm
ent t
o m
eet t
he
need
s of
resi
dent
s w
ithou
t und
erm
inin
g th
e va
lue
or v
iabi
lity
of
the
natu
ral e
nviro
nmen
t.”
iii) T
here
is n
o re
fere
nce
to s
tabl
es a
nd ri
ding
est
ablis
hmen
ts in
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
(A)
RES
ULT
IN T
HE
FRA
GM
ENTA
TIO
N O
F O
R D
ETR
IMEN
TAL
EFFE
CT
UPO
N A
N
AG
RIC
ULT
UR
AL
UN
IT;
(B)
INVO
LVE
INSU
FFIC
IEN
T EX
ERC
ISE
OR
G
RA
ZIN
G L
AN
D F
OR
TH
E N
UM
BER
OF
HO
RSE
S IN
VOLV
ED;
(C)
AD
VER
SELY
AFF
ECT
THE
VISU
AL
AM
ENIT
IES
OR
CH
AR
AC
TER
OF
THE
LOC
AL
AR
EA;
(D)
BE
POO
RLY
LO
CA
TED
IN R
ELA
TIO
N
TO B
RID
LEW
AYS
OR
OPE
N A
REA
S, O
R
WO
ULD
RES
ULT
IN T
HEI
R O
VER
USE
; (E
) D
ETR
IMEN
TALL
Y A
FFEC
T A
SIT
E O
F N
ATU
RE
CO
NSE
RVA
TIO
N IM
POR
TAN
CE
OR
SI
TE O
F SP
ECIA
L SC
IEN
TIFI
C IN
TER
EST;
(F
) A
DVE
RSE
LY A
FFEC
T TH
E R
ESID
ENTI
AL
AM
ENIT
IES
OF
THE
OC
CU
PAN
TS O
F A
NY
NEI
GH
BO
UR
ING
D
WEL
LIN
GS.
the
Lond
on p
lan.
iv
) N/A
v)
N/A
vi
) The
pol
icy
does
not
repe
at n
atio
nal p
olic
y an
d ad
dres
ses
an
activ
ity th
at c
an h
ave
a si
gnifi
cant
ly d
etrim
enta
l effe
ct o
n th
e ap
pear
ance
of a
n ar
ea. I
n ac
cord
ance
with
PP
S7
para
32,
D
PD
s “.
. sho
uld
set o
ut p
olic
ies
for s
uppo
rting
equ
ine
ente
rpris
es th
at m
aint
ain
envi
ronm
enta
l qua
lity
and
coun
trysi
de
char
acte
r……
whe
re, a
ppro
pria
te, f
or th
e ne
eds
of tr
aini
ng a
nd
bree
ding
bus
ines
s.”
The
Riv
er a
nd W
ater
Env
ironm
ent
OL1
7 TH
E C
OU
NC
IL W
ILL
SAFE
GU
AR
D A
ND
PR
OM
OTE
TH
E B
OR
OU
GH
’S R
IVER
S A
ND
W
ATE
R E
NVI
RO
NM
ENT,
IN C
ON
SULT
ATI
ON
W
ITH
TH
E EN
VIR
ON
MEN
T A
GEN
CY,
BY:
1.
R
ESIS
TIN
G C
HA
NG
ES IN
LA
ND
USE
W
HIC
H W
ILL
LEA
D T
O A
DET
ERIO
RA
TIO
N IN
N
/A
To
be
repl
aced
in
the
core
st
rate
gy
and/
or
deve
lopm
ent
cont
rol D
PD
i) P
art 1
Pol
icy
STR
7b W
ater
Res
ourc
e M
anag
emen
t pro
vide
s th
e ce
ntra
l stra
tegy
for m
anag
emen
t of t
he b
orou
gh’s
wat
er
reso
urce
s.
ii) P
olic
y O
L17
cont
ribut
es to
war
ds th
e de
liver
y of
Kin
gsto
n’s
Com
mun
ity P
lan
envi
ronm
enta
l prio
rity
rega
rdin
g w
ater
– to
in
crea
se e
ffici
ency
, red
uce
pollu
tion
and
safe
guar
d aq
uatic
ha
bita
ts.
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
THE
QU
ALI
TY O
F U
ND
ERG
RO
UN
D O
R
SUR
FAC
E W
ATE
RS;
2.
R
ESIS
TIN
G D
EVEL
OPM
ENT
WH
ICH
W
OU
LD H
AVE
AN
AD
VER
SE IM
PAC
T O
N T
HE
NA
TUR
E C
ON
SER
VATI
ON
, FIS
HER
IES,
LA
ND
SCA
PE, P
UB
LIC
AC
CES
S O
R W
ATE
R-
REL
ATE
D R
ECR
EATI
ON
USE
OF
RIV
ERS
IN
THE
BO
RO
UG
H;
3.
VIEW
ING
FA
VOU
RA
BLY
PR
OPO
SALS
TH
AT
RES
ULT
IN T
HE
CO
NSE
RVA
TIO
N O
R
RES
TOR
ATI
ON
OF
THE
NA
TUR
AL
ELEM
ENTS
W
ITH
IN T
HE
RIV
ER C
OR
RID
OR
S, R
ESU
LT IN
LA
ND
SCA
PE IM
PRO
VEM
ENTS
, OR
WH
ICH
IM
PRO
VE P
UB
LIC
AC
CES
S.
iii)
Pol
icy
OL1
7 co
ntrib
utes
tow
ards
del
iver
ing
the
6 pr
inci
ples
of
the
Lond
on P
lan
Blu
e R
ibbo
n N
etw
ork
(cha
pter
4C
) – p
olic
y co
verin
g th
e w
hole
of L
ondo
n’s
wat
erw
ay’s
and
wat
er b
odie
s.
Th
is p
olic
y de
liver
s Lo
ndon
Pla
n po
licie
s: 4
C.1
The
Stra
tegi
c Im
porta
nce
of th
e B
lue
Rib
bon
Net
wor
k, 4
C.2
Con
text
for
Sus
tain
able
Dev
elop
men
t, P
olic
y 4C
.3 T
he N
atur
al v
alue
of t
he
Blu
e R
ibbo
n N
etw
ork,
Pol
icy
4C.4
Nat
ural
Lan
dsca
pe, 4
C.5
Im
poun
ding
of R
iver
s, P
olic
y 4C
.13
Pas
seng
er a
nd to
uris
m u
ses
on th
e B
lue
Rib
bon
Net
wor
k, 4
C.1
6 In
crea
sing
spo
rt an
d le
isur
e us
e on
the
Blu
e R
ibbo
n N
etw
ork,
Pol
icy
4C.1
7 In
crea
sing
ac
cess
alo
ngsi
de a
nd to
the
Blu
e R
ibbo
n N
etw
ork,
Pol
icy
4C.2
4 Im
porta
nce
of th
e Th
ames
and
Pol
icy
4C.3
1 R
iver
s, B
rook
s an
d S
tream
s. T
he L
ondo
n P
lan
stat
es th
at b
orou
ghs
shou
ld id
entif
y,
prot
ect,
enha
nce
etc
thro
ugh
thei
r UD
P p
olic
ies.
iv
) N/A
v)
N/A
vi
) Pol
icy
OL1
7 is
nec
essa
ry a
s it
prov
ides
the
prot
ectio
n to
su
rface
and
gro
undw
ater
reso
urce
s re
quire
d by
Lon
don
Pla
n an
d P
PS
23.
Floo
ding
O
L18
IN A
REA
S A
T R
ISK
FR
OM
FLO
OD
ING
, TH
E C
OU
NC
IL W
ILL
RES
IST
DEV
ELO
PMEN
T W
HIC
H
WIL
L IN
CR
EASE
TH
E R
ISK
OF
FLO
OD
ING
. W
HER
E A
NY
DEV
ELO
PMEN
T IS
PER
MIT
TED
,
N
/A
To
be
repl
aced
in
the
core
st
rate
gy
and/
or
deve
lopm
ent
cont
rol D
PD
i) P
olic
y S
TR7b
, pro
vide
s th
e ce
ntra
l stra
tegy
ii)
Pol
icy
OL1
7 co
ntrib
utes
tow
ards
the
deliv
ery
of K
ings
ton’
s C
omm
unity
Pla
n ob
ject
ive
“to s
afeg
uard
and
enh
ance
the
Bor
ough
’s lo
cal e
nviro
nmen
t, en
ablin
g de
velo
pmen
t to
mee
t the
ne
eds
of re
side
nts
with
out u
nder
min
ing
the
valu
e or
via
bilit
y of
th
e na
tura
l env
ironm
ent.”
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
THE
CO
UN
CIL
MA
Y R
EQU
IRE
APP
RO
PRIA
TE
FLO
OD
PR
OTE
CTI
ON
MEA
SUR
ES IN
C
ON
JUN
CTI
ON
WIT
H T
HE
ENVI
RO
NM
ENT
AG
ENC
Y.
iii) T
he L
ondo
n P
lan
polic
y 4C
.6 F
lood
Pla
ins
stat
es th
at
boro
ugh’
s sh
ould
iden
tify
area
s at
risk
of f
lood
ing
and
asse
ss
deve
lopm
ent i
n ac
cord
ance
with
PP
G25
(now
revi
sed
as
PP
S25
).
iv) N
/A
v) N
/A
vi) T
his
polic
y co
nfor
ms
with
the
envi
ronm
enta
l iss
ues
that
pla
n po
licie
s sh
ould
take
acc
ount
of i
n P
PS
1, in
par
ticul
ar p
arag
raph
20
‘…po
tent
ial i
mpa
ct o
f the
env
ironm
ent o
n pr
opos
ed
deve
lopm
ent i
n ar
eas
at ri
sk o
f flo
odin
g …
’ Thi
s po
licy
deliv
ers
the
deci
sion
mak
ing
prin
cipl
es o
f PP
S25
. D
iver
sify
ing
Leis
ure
Faci
litie
s ST
R8
THE
CO
UN
CIL
WIL
L EN
CO
UR
AG
E TH
E R
ETEN
TIO
N, U
PGR
AD
ING
AN
D
DIV
ERSI
FIC
ATI
ON
OF
LEIS
UR
E FA
CIL
ITIE
S IN
K
ING
STO
N T
OW
N C
ENTR
E A
ND
OTH
ER
PAR
TS O
F TH
E B
OR
OU
GH
, GIV
ING
A H
IGH
PR
IOR
ITY
TO M
EETI
NG
LO
CA
L D
EMA
ND
AS
WEL
L A
S PR
OM
OTI
NG
TO
UR
ISM
WH
ERE
IT
DO
ES N
OT
CA
USE
EN
VIR
ON
MEN
TAL
PRO
BLE
MS,
OR
AD
VER
SELY
AFF
ECT
RES
IDEN
TIA
L A
MEN
ITY.
n/
a
To b
e re
plac
ed b
y th
e C
ore
Stra
tegy
i) P
olic
y S
TR8
is a
Par
t 1 p
olic
y an
d is
ther
efor
e pa
rt of
the
cent
ral s
trate
gy.
ii) P
olic
y S
TR8
is c
onsi
sten
t with
Kin
gsto
n’s
Com
mun
ity P
lan,
H
ealth
and
Soc
ial C
are
obje
ctiv
e to
ens
ure
that
“..lo
cal r
esid
ents
ha
ve a
cces
s to
hig
h qu
ality
spo
rts a
nd fi
tnes
s pr
ovis
ion
thro
ugh
leis
ure
cent
res,
pla
ying
fiel
ds, p
arks
and
ope
n sp
aces
to s
uppo
rt he
alth
y liv
ing.
”
iii) T
he p
olic
y is
in c
onfo
rmity
with
Lon
don
Pla
n po
licy
3D.5
S
ports
Fac
ilitie
s, id
entif
ying
site
s fo
r a ra
nge
of s
ports
faci
litie
s to
mee
t loc
al s
ub-r
egio
nal a
nd w
ider
nee
ds. A
lso
polic
y 3D
.2
Tow
n C
entre
Dev
elop
men
t, us
ing
the
sequ
entia
l app
roac
h to
id
entif
y th
e pr
efer
red
loca
tions
and
pol
icy
3D.4
Dev
elop
men
t an
d P
rom
otio
n of
Arts
and
Cul
ture
.
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
iv) N
/A
v) N
/A
vi) T
he p
olic
y is
nec
essa
ry to
pro
mot
e le
isur
e an
d to
uris
m a
s pa
rt of
the
cent
ral s
trate
gy o
f the
UD
P.
Ret
entio
n or
Rep
lace
men
t of I
ndoo
r Lei
sure
Fa
cilit
ies
R
L3
EXIS
TIN
G IN
DO
OR
REC
REA
TIO
N, L
EISU
RE,
C
ULT
UR
AL,
SO
CIA
L O
R E
NTE
RTA
INM
ENT
USE
S SH
OU
LD N
OR
MA
LLY
BE
RET
AIN
ED O
R
REP
LAC
ED W
HER
E R
EDEV
ELO
PMEN
T IS
PR
OPO
SED
WIT
H A
FA
CIL
ITY
OF
APP
RO
PRIA
TE S
CA
LE O
R T
YPE
UN
LESS
TH
EY
AR
E C
AU
SIN
G E
XCES
SIVE
DET
RIM
ENT
TO
LOC
AL
AM
ENIT
Y.
n/
a
To b
e re
plac
ed in
th
e de
velo
pmen
t co
ntro
l pol
icy
DP
D
i) Th
e ce
ntra
l stra
tegy
is p
rovi
ded
by P
art 1
pol
icy
STR
8 (d
iver
sify
ing
leis
ure
faci
litie
s).
ii) P
olic
y R
L3 is
con
sist
ent w
ith K
ings
ton’
s C
omm
unity
Pla
n,
Hea
lth a
nd S
ocia
l Car
e ob
ject
ive
to e
nsur
e th
at “.
.loca
l res
iden
ts
have
acc
ess
to h
igh
qual
ity s
ports
and
fitn
ess
prov
isio
n th
roug
h le
isur
e ce
ntre
s, p
layi
ng fi
elds
, par
ks a
nd o
pen
spac
es to
sup
port
heal
thy
livin
g.”
iii
) Lon
don
Pla
n po
licy
3D.5
Spo
rts F
acilit
ies
prom
otes
spo
rts
faci
litie
s.
iv) N
/A
v) N
/A
iv) T
he p
olic
y is
nec
essa
ry to
pro
tect
faci
litie
s an
d is
in
conf
orm
ity w
ith P
PG
17 (P
lann
ing
for O
pen
Spa
ce, S
port
and
recr
eatio
n) w
hich
sta
tes
that
‘exi
stin
g op
en s
pace
, spo
rts a
nd
recr
eatio
nal b
uild
ings
and
land
sho
uld
not b
e bu
ilt o
n un
less
an
asse
ssm
ent h
as b
een
unde
rtake
n w
hich
cle
arly
sho
ws
the
open
sp
ace
or b
uild
ings
and
land
to b
e su
rplu
s to
requ
irem
ents
’. A
nd
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
that
‘loc
al a
utho
ritie
s sh
ould
see
k op
portu
nitie
s to
impr
ove
the
valu
e of
exi
stin
g fa
cilit
ies’
.
D
ual U
se o
f Edu
catio
nal a
nd C
omm
unity
Fa
cilit
ies
for L
eisu
re P
urpo
ses
RL4
W
IDER
CO
MM
UN
ITY
USE
FO
R L
EISU
RE
OF
EXIS
TIN
G S
CH
OO
L FA
CIL
ITIE
S A
ND
OTH
ER
FAC
ILIT
IES
IN P
UB
LIC
OR
PR
IVA
TE
OW
NER
SHIP
WIL
L B
E SO
UG
HT
SUB
JEC
T TO
: 1.
ED
UC
ATI
ON
AL
SER
VIC
ES O
R
EXIS
TIN
G IN
TER
ESTS
NO
T B
EIN
G A
DVE
RSE
LY
AFF
ECTE
D;
2.
THE
FAC
ILIT
IES
BEI
NG
SU
ITA
BLE
FO
R
USE
BY
THE
PUB
LIC
; 3.
TH
E EX
TEN
T A
ND
CO
ST O
F A
DA
PTA
TIO
N N
ECES
SAR
Y TO
EN
AB
LE W
IDER
PU
BLI
C U
SE;
4.
THE
PRO
TEC
TIO
N O
F LO
CA
L A
MEN
ITY.
n/
a
To b
e re
plac
ed in
th
e co
re
stra
tegy
an
d/or
de
velo
pmen
t co
ntro
l pol
icy
DP
D
i) P
art 1
pol
icy
STR
8 (d
iver
sify
ing
leis
ure
faci
litie
s) fo
rms
the
cent
ral s
trate
gy.
ii)
Pol
icy
RL4
is c
onsi
sten
t with
Kin
gsto
n’s
Com
mun
ity P
lan,
H
ealth
and
Soc
ial C
are
obje
ctiv
e to
ens
ure
that
“..lo
cal r
esid
ents
ha
ve a
cces
s to
hig
h qu
ality
spo
rts a
nd fi
tnes
s pr
ovis
ion
thro
ugh
leis
ure
cent
res,
pla
ying
fiel
ds, p
arks
and
ope
n sp
aces
to s
uppo
rt he
alth
y liv
ing.
”
iii) L
ondo
n P
lan
polic
y 3A
.15
prom
otes
the
prot
ectio
n an
d en
hanc
emen
t of s
ocia
l inf
rast
ruct
ure
and
com
mun
ity fa
cilit
ies.
iv) N
/A
v) N
/A
vi) T
his
polic
y is
nec
essa
ry b
ecau
se n
eith
er n
atio
nal n
or
regi
onal
pol
icy
spec
ifica
lly p
rom
otes
dua
l use
of s
choo
ls.
Chi
ldre
n’s
Play
Pro
visi
on
RL7
IN
AR
EAS
DEF
ICIE
NT
IN C
HIL
DR
EN’S
PLA
Y A
REA
S, A
S SH
OW
N O
N M
AP
RL1
, TH
E C
OU
NC
IL W
ILL
GIV
E PR
IOR
ITY
TO T
HE
USE
O
F SU
ITA
BLE
SM
ALL
SIT
ES A
S C
HIL
DR
EN’S
n/
a
To b
e re
plac
ed in
th
e co
re
stra
tegy
an
d/or
de
velo
pmen
t co
ntro
l pol
icy
i) P
art 1
pol
icy
STR
8 (d
iver
sify
ing
leis
ure
faci
litie
s) fo
rms
the
cent
ral s
trate
gy.
Kin
gsto
n ha
s an
ado
pted
pla
y st
rate
gy.
ii)
Pol
icy
RL7
is c
onsi
sten
t with
Kin
gsto
n’s
Com
mun
ity P
lan,
H
ealth
and
Soc
ial C
are
obje
ctiv
e to
ens
ure
that
“..lo
cal r
esid
ents
ha
ve a
cces
s to
hig
h qu
ality
spo
rts a
nd fi
tnes
s pr
ovis
ion
thro
ugh
leis
ure
cent
res,
pla
ying
fiel
ds, p
arks
and
ope
n sp
aces
to s
uppo
rt
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
PLA
Y A
REA
S.
THR
OU
GH
OU
T TH
E B
OR
OU
GH
TH
E C
OU
NC
IL
WIL
L R
EQU
IRE
THE
INC
OR
POR
ATI
ON
OF
SUIT
AB
LY E
QU
IPPE
D A
ND
DES
IGN
ED
CH
ILD
REN
’S P
LAY
AR
EAS
IN D
EVEL
OPM
ENTS
W
HIC
H IN
CLU
DE
A M
AJO
R P
RO
VISI
ON
OF
FAM
ILY
HO
USI
NG
DP
D
heal
thy
livin
g.”
iii
) Thi
s po
licy
is in
con
form
ity w
ith L
ondo
n P
lan
polic
y 3D
.7
Rea
lisin
g th
e va
lue
of o
pen
spac
e an
d po
licy
3A.1
5 P
rote
ctio
n an
d en
hanc
emen
t of s
ocia
l inf
rast
ruct
ure
and
com
mun
ity
faci
litie
s se
eks
adeq
uate
pro
visi
on fo
r com
mun
ity fa
cilit
ies
with
in
acce
ssib
le lo
catio
ns.
The
Lon
don
Pla
n A
ltera
tions
are
pr
opos
ing
a ne
w p
olic
y 3D
.11i
Chi
ldre
n an
d Y
oung
Peo
ple’
s pl
ay a
nd in
form
al re
crea
tion
stra
tegi
es w
hich
aim
s to
ens
ure
that
al
l chi
ldre
n ha
ve s
afe
acce
ss to
goo
d qu
ality
, wel
l des
igne
d,
secu
re a
nd s
timul
atin
g pl
ay a
nd in
form
al re
crea
tion
prov
isio
n.
iv) N
/A
v) N
/A
vi) T
his
polic
y is
nec
essa
ry to
sec
ure
suita
ble
open
spa
ce
prov
isio
n w
ith n
ew d
evel
opm
ent,
N
ew H
otel
Acc
omm
odat
ion
R
L8
PRO
POSA
LS F
OR
NEW
OR
AD
DIT
ION
AL
HO
TEL
AC
CO
MM
OD
ATI
ON
WIL
L B
E EN
CO
UR
AG
ED O
N S
UIT
AB
LE S
ITES
ID
ENTI
FIED
IN T
HE
PLA
N. E
LSEW
HER
E PR
OPO
SALS
FO
R L
AR
GE
SCA
LE H
OTE
L D
EVEL
OPM
ENT
WIL
L O
NLY
BE
GR
AN
TED
PL
AN
NIN
G P
ERM
ISSI
ON
AT
MA
JOR
FO
CA
L PO
INTS
WH
ERE
INFR
AST
RU
CTU
RE
AN
D
OTH
ER F
AC
ILIT
IES
AR
E A
VAIL
AB
LE, A
ND
n/
a
To b
e re
plac
ed in
th
e co
re
stra
tegy
an
d/or
de
velo
pmen
t co
ntro
l pol
icy
DP
D
i) P
art 1
pol
icy
STR
8 (d
iver
sify
ing
leis
ure
faci
litie
s) fo
rms
the
cent
ral s
trate
gy.
Pol
icy
RL8
con
tribu
tes
to d
eliv
erin
g K
ey
Obj
ectiv
e 8
‘A th
rivin
g lo
cal e
cono
my’
of t
he C
ounc
ils P
olic
y P
rogr
amm
e.
ii) P
olic
y R
L8 c
ontri
bute
s to
war
ds d
eliv
erin
g th
e C
omm
unity
P
lan
visi
on o
f ‘a
focu
s fo
r tou
rism
and
recr
eatio
n’ a
nd ‘a
regi
onal
en
terta
inm
ent a
nd c
ultu
ral c
entre
’. iii
) Lon
don
Pla
n po
licy
3D.6
Vis
itor a
ccom
mod
atio
n an
d fa
cilit
ies
aim
s to
del
iver
thro
ugh
wor
king
with
stra
tegi
c pa
rtner
s 36
,000
ad
ditio
nal h
otel
bed
room
s by
201
6 an
d to
impr
ove
the
qual
ity,
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
PRO
VID
ED T
HA
T TH
E PR
OPO
SAL
DO
ES N
OT
CO
NFL
ICT
WIT
H A
NY
OTH
ER P
OLI
CY
OF
THE
PLA
N. W
ITH
IN T
HE
BU
ILT
UP
AR
EA O
F TH
E B
OR
OU
GH
, PR
OPO
SALS
FO
R N
EW S
MA
LL
SCA
LE H
OTE
L A
ND
GU
EST
HO
USE
A
CC
OM
MO
DA
TIO
N A
ND
EXT
ENSI
ON
S TO
EX
ISTI
NG
AC
CO
MM
OD
ATI
ON
WIL
L B
E A
SSES
SED
AG
AIN
ST T
HE
FOLL
OW
ING
C
RIT
ERIA
: 1.
TH
E C
UM
ULA
TIVE
IMPA
CT
OF
HO
TEL
DEV
ELO
PMEN
T;
2.
THE
CH
AR
AC
TER
OF
THE
AR
EA;
3.
THE
AM
ENIT
Y O
F A
DJO
ININ
G
RES
IDEN
TS;
4.
PAR
KIN
G A
ND
SER
VIC
ING
; 5.
TR
AFF
IC C
ON
DIT
ION
S;
6.
LOC
ATI
ON
IN T
ERM
S O
F A
CC
ESS
TO
PUB
LIC
TR
AN
SPO
RT
AN
D T
HE
MA
IN R
OA
D
NET
WO
RK
.
varie
ty a
nd d
istri
butio
n of
vis
itor a
ccom
mod
atio
n an
d fa
cilit
ies.
Th
e po
licy
stat
es th
at s
mal
ler s
cale
acc
omm
odat
ion
shou
ld b
e de
liver
ed in
tow
n ce
ntre
s. P
olic
y R
L8 is
in g
ener
al c
onfo
rmity
w
ith th
is L
ondo
n P
lan
polic
y.
iv) N
/A
v) N
/A
vi) T
his
polic
y is
nec
essa
ry to
add
ress
the
loca
l circ
umst
ance
s of
hot
el p
rovi
sion
. It
is c
onsi
sten
t with
the
prin
cipl
es o
f PPS
6 an
d th
e Lo
ndon
Pla
n,
Tour
ism
and
Vis
itors
R
L9
THE
CO
UN
CIL
WIL
L SU
PPO
RT
PRO
POSA
LS
TO P
RO
MO
TE T
OU
RIS
M A
ND
CA
TER
FO
R
VISI
TOR
S TO
TH
E B
OR
OU
GH
, IN
CLU
DIN
G
MEA
SUR
ES W
HIC
H:-
(A)
CO
MPL
EMEN
T A
ND
BU
ILD
UPO
N T
HE
AD
VAN
TAG
ES O
F TH
E H
ISTO
RIC
TO
WN
n/
a
To b
e re
plac
ed in
th
e co
re
stra
tegy
an
d/or
de
velo
pmen
t co
ntro
l pol
icy
DP
D
i) P
art 1
pol
icy
STR
8 (d
iver
sify
ing
leis
ure
faci
litie
s) fo
rms
the
cent
ral s
trate
gy.
Pol
icy
RL9
con
tribu
tes
to d
eliv
erin
g K
ey
Obj
ectiv
e 8
‘A th
rivin
g lo
cal e
cono
my’
of t
he C
ounc
ils P
olic
y P
rogr
amm
e.
ii) P
olic
y R
L9 c
ontri
bute
s to
war
ds th
e C
omm
unity
Pla
n vi
sion
of
‘a fo
cus
for t
ouris
m a
nd re
crea
tion’
and
‘a re
gion
al e
nter
tain
men
t an
d cu
ltura
l cen
tre’.
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
CEN
TRE
OF
KIN
GST
ON
; (B
) IM
PRO
VE T
HE
QU
ALI
TY, S
ETTI
NG
AN
D
AC
CES
S A
RR
AN
GEM
ENTS
(IN
CLU
DIN
G B
Y PU
BLI
C T
RA
NSP
OR
T) O
F EX
ISTI
NG
TO
UR
IST
ATT
RA
CTI
ON
S, IN
PA
RTI
CU
LAR
AT
CH
ESSI
NG
TON
WO
RLD
OF
AD
VEN
TUR
ES;
AN
D
(C)
EXPL
OIT
TH
E O
PPO
RTU
NIT
IES
OFF
ERED
BY
THE
RO
YAL
BO
RO
UG
H’S
R
IVER
SID
E LO
CA
TIO
N A
ND
ITS
PRO
XIM
ITY
TO
A N
UM
BER
OF
PLA
CES
OF
MA
JOR
HIS
TOR
IC
INTE
RES
T;
SO L
ON
G A
S PR
OPO
SALS
DO
NO
T A
DVE
RSE
LY A
FFEC
T LO
CA
L A
MEN
ITIE
S A
ND
A
RE
CO
NSI
STEN
T W
ITH
TH
E PR
OTE
CTI
ON
OF
THE
ENVI
RO
NM
ENT.
iii) P
olic
y R
L9 is
in g
ener
al c
onfo
rmity
with
Lon
don
Pla
n po
licy
3D.6
Vis
itor a
ccom
mod
atio
n an
d fa
cilit
ies
stat
es th
at b
orou
ghs
shou
ld s
uppo
rt ex
istin
g an
d en
cour
age
deve
lopm
ent o
f new
to
uris
t attr
actio
ns. P
olic
y 3B
.10
tour
ism
indu
stry
see
ks to
im
prov
e th
e to
uris
t env
ironm
ent,
visi
tor i
nfor
mat
ion
and
man
agem
ent t
o pr
ovid
e a
bette
r exp
erie
nce.
iv
) n/a
v)
n/a
vi
) In
May
200
6 D
CLG
pub
lishe
d G
ood
Pra
ctic
e G
uide
on
Pla
nnin
g fo
r Tou
rism
, thi
s em
phas
ised
the
impo
rtanc
e of
in
clud
ing
polic
ies
on to
uris
m in
LD
F’s.
The
pol
icy
does
not
re
peat
hig
her p
olic
y pr
omot
ing
tour
ism
. It
is a
loca
lly s
peci
fic
polic
y an
d th
roug
h sa
ving
pol
icy
RL9
a fr
amew
ork
is in
pla
ce to
de
liver
tour
ism
in th
e bo
roug
h w
hils
t the
Cor
e S
trate
gy a
nd
Dev
elop
men
t Con
trol D
PD
em
erge
. C
omm
unity
Ser
vice
s ST
R9
ED
UC
ATI
ON
, SO
CIA
L A
ND
OTH
ER
C
OM
MU
NIT
Y S
ER
VIC
ES
RE
QU
IRIN
G A
S
TRA
TEG
IC L
OC
ATI
ON
IN O
RD
ER
TO
S
ER
VE
TH
E B
OR
OU
GH
OR
A W
IDE
R A
RE
A
WIL
L B
E E
NC
OU
RA
GE
D W
ITH
IN K
ING
STO
N
TOW
N C
EN
TRE
. O
THE
R M
OR
E L
OC
AL
SE
RV
ICE
S W
ILL
BE
EN
CO
UR
AG
ED
IN
DIS
TRIC
T C
EN
TRE
S A
ND
OTH
ER
SU
ITA
BLE
LO
CA
TIO
NS
.
N/
A
To b
e re
plac
ed in
th
e co
re
stra
tegy
an
d/or
de
velo
pmen
t co
ntro
l pol
icy
DP
Ds
Pol
icy
STR
9: p
rovi
des
the
loca
l spa
tial c
onte
xt fo
r the
re
quire
men
ts s
et o
ut b
y th
e Lo
ndon
Pla
n an
d P
PS
1 re
gard
ing
the
loca
tion
of e
duca
tion,
soc
ial a
nd o
ther
com
mun
ity s
ervi
ces.
Th
is p
olic
y pr
ovid
es a
spa
tial c
onte
xt fo
r the
det
aile
d U
DP
Par
t 2
Com
mun
ity S
ervi
ces
polic
ies.
i)
This
pol
icy,
alo
ng w
ith o
ther
Par
t 1 p
olic
ies
prov
ides
the
cent
ral s
trate
gy.
ii) P
olic
y S
TR9
is c
onsi
sten
t with
the
Com
mun
ity S
trate
gy:
Hea
lth a
nd S
ocia
l Car
e ov
eral
l obj
ectiv
e; ‘.
.ens
urin
g th
at:
Peo
ple
can
acce
ss in
form
atio
n an
d se
rvic
es w
hich
hel
p to
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
ac
hiev
e or
mai
ntai
n go
od h
ealth
’, P
riorit
y 5:
‘Mak
ing
sure
that
pe
ople
can
acc
ess
good
ser
vice
s an
d ar
e tre
ated
fairl
y,’ a
nd
the
Com
mun
ity S
trate
gy: E
duca
tion
and
Life
long
Lea
rnin
g ov
eral
l obj
ectiv
e ‘T
o m
ake
Kin
gsto
n a
plac
e w
here
eve
ryon
e va
lues
, enj
oys
and
bene
fits
from
lear
ning
’, by
enc
oura
ging
th
e pr
ovis
ion
of e
duca
tiona
l, so
cial
and
oth
er c
omm
unity
use
s in
stra
tegi
c, a
cces
sibl
e lo
catio
ns.
iii) P
olic
y S
TR9
is p
rovi
des
a lo
cal s
patia
l con
text
to th
e pr
ovis
ion
of c
omm
unity
ser
vice
s an
d fa
cilit
ies
cons
iste
nt w
ith
the
follo
win
g Lo
ndon
Pla
n po
licie
s; P
olic
y 3A
.15
Pro
tect
ion
and
enha
ncem
ent o
f soc
ial i
nfra
stru
ctur
e an
d co
mm
unity
fa
cilit
ies,
Pol
icy
3A.1
8 w
hich
enc
oura
ges
UD
P p
olic
ies
to
‘sup
port
the
prov
isio
n of
add
ition
al h
ealth
car
e fa
cilit
ies
and
iden
tify
pref
erre
d lo
catio
ns.’
and
Pol
icy
3A.2
1 w
hich
requ
ires
that
‘UD
P p
olic
ies
shou
ld e
nsur
e ad
equa
te p
rovi
sion
of p
re-
scho
ol, s
choo
l and
com
mun
ity le
arni
ng fa
cilit
ies.
’ iv
) N/A
v)
N/A
vi
) P
olic
y S
TR9
does
not
repe
at h
ighe
r lev
el p
olic
y an
d is
ne
cess
ary
beca
use
it ap
plie
s pa
ra 2
7(v)
of P
PS
1 to
the
loca
l le
vel.
PPS
1 se
eks
to P
rovi
de im
prov
ed a
cces
s fo
r all
to jo
bs,
heal
th, e
duca
tion,
sho
ps, l
eisu
re a
nd c
omm
unity
faci
litie
s,
open
spa
ce, s
port
and
recr
eatio
n, b
y en
surin
g th
at n
ew
deve
lopm
ent i
s lo
cate
d w
here
eve
ryon
e ca
n ac
cess
ser
vice
s or
faci
litie
s on
foot
, bic
ycle
or p
ublic
tran
spor
t. Th
e P
lann
ing
and
Com
puls
ory
Pur
chas
e A
ct in
trodu
ced
in 2
004
a ne
w s
tyle
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
of p
lann
ing
– sp
atia
l pla
nnin
g. P
olic
y S
TR9
is c
onsi
sten
t with
a
spat
ial p
lann
ing
appr
oach
and
pro
vide
s a
loca
l con
text
to
over
arch
ing
natio
nal o
bjec
tives
.
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
New
Com
mun
ity F
acili
ties
and
the
Exte
nsio
n of
Ex
istin
g C
omm
unity
Fac
ilitie
s C
S1
THE
CO
UN
CIL
WIL
L N
OR
MA
LLY
PER
MIT
PR
OPO
SALS
FO
R N
EW E
DU
CA
TIO
N, S
OC
IAL
AN
D O
THER
CO
MM
UN
ITY
SER
VIC
ES IN
D
ISTR
ICT
CEN
TRES
, AN
D P
RO
POSA
LS T
O
IMPR
OVE
OR
EXT
END
EXI
STIN
G F
AC
ILIT
IES
(INC
LUD
ING
HO
SPIT
AL
FAC
ILIT
IES)
WH
ERE
REQ
UIR
ED F
OR
OPE
RA
TIO
NA
L R
EASO
NS,
PR
OVI
DED
TH
E FO
LLO
WIN
G C
RIT
ERIA
AR
E M
ET:
(A)
AD
EQU
ATE
PU
BLI
C T
RA
NSP
OR
T IS
A
VAIL
AB
LE F
RO
M A
LL P
AR
TS O
F TH
E C
ATC
HM
ENT
AR
EA;
(B)
TRA
FFIC
CO
ND
ITIO
NS
AR
E N
OT
AD
VER
SELY
AFF
ECTE
D;
(C)
RES
IDEN
TIA
L A
MEN
ITIE
S A
ND
EN
VIR
ON
MEN
TAL
CO
NSI
DER
ATI
ON
S A
RE
NO
T A
DVE
RSE
LY A
FFEC
TED
.
N/
A
To b
e re
plac
ed in
th
e co
re
stra
tegy
an
d/or
de
velo
pmen
t co
ntro
l pol
icy
DP
Ds
Pol
icy
CS
1 pr
ovid
es fu
rther
det
ail t
o th
e sp
atia
l obj
ectiv
es o
f po
licy
STR
9 by
list
ing
crite
ria fo
r com
mun
ity d
evel
opm
ents
. i)
Par
t 1 p
olic
ies,
esp
ecia
lly S
TR9
prov
ide
the
cent
ral s
trate
gy.
ii) C
S1
is c
onsi
sten
t with
and
see
ks to
impl
emen
t the
follo
win
g C
omm
unity
Stra
tegy
ove
rall
obje
ctiv
es a
nd p
riorit
ies;
Hea
lth
and
Soc
ial C
are
to e
nsur
e th
at ‘P
eopl
e ca
n ac
cess
in
form
atio
n an
d se
rvic
es w
hich
hel
p to
ach
ieve
or m
aint
ain
good
hea
lth’ a
nd P
riorit
y 5:
‘…pe
ople
can
acc
ess
good
se
rvic
es a
nd a
re tr
eate
d fa
irly.
’ E
duca
tion
and
Life
long
Le
arni
ng o
vera
ll ob
ject
ive
‘To
mak
e K
ings
ton
a pl
ace
whe
re
ever
yone
val
ues,
enj
oys
and
bene
fits
from
lear
ning
’ and
the
Com
mun
ity S
trate
gy: T
rans
port
Prio
rity
7 ‘R
educ
ing
the
jour
ney
leng
th to
wor
k, s
choo
ls a
nd h
ospi
tals
.’ iii)
Pol
icy
CS
1 pr
ovid
es th
e lo
cal s
patia
l con
text
to, a
nd is
co
nsis
tent
with
, the
obj
ectiv
es o
f the
follo
win
g Lo
ndon
Pla
n po
licie
s:
3A.1
5 P
rote
ctio
n an
d en
hanc
emen
t of s
ocia
l inf
rast
ruct
ure
and
com
mun
ity fa
cilit
ies
3A.1
8 …
UD
P po
licie
s sh
ould
sup
port
the
prov
isio
n of
ad
ditio
nal h
ealth
car
e fa
cilit
ies
and
iden
tify
pref
erre
d lo
catio
ns.
3A.2
1 …
UD
P p
olic
ies
shou
ld e
nsur
e ad
equa
te p
rovi
sion
of
pre-
scho
ol, s
choo
l and
com
mun
ity le
arni
ng fa
cilit
ies.
3C
.16
Tack
ling
cong
estio
n an
d re
duci
ng tr
affic
iv
) N/A
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
v) N
/A
vi) C
S1
does
not
repe
at h
ighe
r lev
el p
olic
y. E
duca
tion,
Vol
unta
ry
Sec
tor a
nd P
rimar
y C
are
Trus
t im
plem
enta
tion
plan
s an
d st
rate
gies
for t
he b
orou
gh s
tress
the
impo
rtanc
e of
pr
ovid
ing
com
mun
ity fa
cilit
ies
and
serv
ices
in lo
catio
ns
easi
ly a
cces
sibl
e to
thei
r clie
nts
such
as
Dis
trict
C
entre
s. T
hese
pla
ns re
cogn
ise
that
loca
tions
for
faci
litie
s sh
ould
be
acce
ssib
le b
y pu
blic
tran
spor
t and
sh
ould
resp
ect t
he s
urro
undi
ng e
nviro
nmen
t. P
olic
y C
S1
supp
orts
thes
e lo
catio
nal o
bjec
tives
.
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
Faci
litie
s fo
r Car
e in
the
Com
mun
ity
CS2
IM
PRO
VEM
ENTS
IN T
HE
PRO
VISI
ON
OF
FAC
ILIT
IES
FOR
TH
E C
AR
E IN
TH
E C
OM
MU
NIT
Y O
F PE
OPL
E W
ITH
MEN
TAL
HEA
LTH
PR
OB
LEM
S A
ND
TH
OSE
WIT
H
LEA
RN
ING
OR
PH
YSIC
AL
DIS
AB
ILIT
IES
INC
LUD
ING
TH
OSE
RES
ULT
ING
FR
OM
A
GEI
NG
, WIL
L N
OR
MA
LLY
BE
SUPP
OR
TED
W
HER
E:
(A)
THE
AC
CO
MM
OD
ATI
ON
IS S
UIT
AB
LE
FOR
TH
EIR
NEE
DS;
(B
) A
PPR
OPR
IATE
DA
Y C
AR
E A
ND
OTH
ER
SER
VIC
ES A
RE
PRO
VID
ED T
O S
UPP
OR
T TH
EIR
LIV
ING
MO
RE
IND
EPEN
DEN
TLY;
(C
) TH
EY A
RE
SITE
D W
ITH
CO
NVE
NIE
NT
AC
CES
S TO
TR
AN
SPO
RT,
SH
OPS
AN
D
OPE
N S
PAC
ES (W
HER
E PO
SSIB
LE);
AN
D
(D)
IN T
HE
CA
SE O
F R
ESID
ENTI
AL
AC
CO
MM
OD
ATI
ON
IT C
AN
BE
SATI
SFA
CTO
RIL
Y LO
CA
TED
WIT
H
CO
NVE
NIE
NT
AC
CES
S TO
LO
CA
L C
OM
MU
NIT
Y SE
RVI
CES
.
N/
A
To b
e re
plac
ed in
th
e co
re
stra
tegy
an
d/or
de
velo
pmen
t co
ntro
l pol
icy
DP
Ds
Pol
icy
CS
2 is
con
side
red
cons
iste
nt w
ith th
e ob
ject
ives
of
natio
nal p
olic
y an
d re
gion
al p
olic
y an
d pr
ovid
es a
n ef
fect
ive
tool
fo
r enc
oura
ging
and
pro
vidi
ng fo
r hea
lth c
are
serv
ices
in
suita
ble
loca
tions
for p
eopl
e w
ith m
enta
l, le
arni
ng o
r phy
sica
l he
alth
pro
blem
s in
the
com
mun
ity. T
his
polic
y w
orks
in
conj
unct
ion
with
the
serie
s of
CS
pol
icie
s to
regu
late
de
velo
pmen
t and
the
prov
isio
n of
ser
vice
s.
i) P
art 1
pol
icie
s, e
spec
ially
STR
9 C
omm
unity
Ser
vice
s pr
ovid
e th
e ce
ntra
l stra
tegy
. ii)
Pol
icy
CS
2 is
con
sist
ent w
ith th
e C
omm
unity
Stra
tegy
: Hea
lth
and
Soc
ial C
are
over
all o
bjec
tive
whi
ch s
eeks
to e
nsur
e th
at
‘peo
ple
can
acce
ss in
form
atio
n an
d se
rvic
es w
hich
hel
p to
ac
hiev
e or
mai
ntai
n go
od h
ealth
… a
nd to
pro
vide
and
co
mm
issi
on s
ervi
ces
appr
opria
te to
the
iden
tifie
d ne
eds.
’ iii
) Lo
ndon
Pla
n po
licie
s 3A
.18,
3A
.17
and
3A.1
0 di
rect
UD
P
polic
ies
to ‘s
uppo
rt th
e pr
ovis
ion
of a
dditi
onal
hea
lth c
are.
.. as
id
entif
ied
by s
trate
gic
heal
th a
utho
ritie
s…’ (
3A.1
8), t
o ‘p
rom
ote
the
obje
ctiv
es o
f the
NH
S P
lan,
Loc
al d
eliv
ery
Pla
ns
and
Mod
erni
satio
n P
rogr
amm
es’ (
3A.1
7), a
nd to
‘pro
vide
for
spec
ial n
eeds
hou
sing
…’ (
3A.1
0). P
olic
y C
S1
reco
gnis
es a
nd
acts
upo
n th
is d
irect
ion.
iv
) N/A
v)
N/A
vi
) The
pro
posa
ls in
the
Whi
te P
aper
, Our
hea
lth, o
ur c
are,
our
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
say:
a n
ew d
irect
ion
for c
omm
unity
ser
vice
s (J
an 2
006)
, aim
to
: •
chan
ge th
e w
ay th
ese
serv
ices
are
pro
vide
d in
co
mm
uniti
es a
nd m
ake
them
as
flexi
ble
as p
ossi
ble
•
wor
k w
ith h
ealth
and
soc
ial c
are
prof
essi
onal
s an
d se
rvic
es
to g
et th
e m
ost a
ppro
pria
te tr
eatm
ent o
r car
e fo
r the
ir ne
eds.
K
PC
T se
eks
to e
ncou
rage
the
prov
isio
n fo
r car
ing
for p
atie
nts
in
the
neig
hbou
rhoo
d se
tting
as
far a
s pr
actic
able
. The
re is
an
incr
easi
ng re
quire
men
t for
peo
ple
with
a d
isab
ility
or i
llnes
s to
liv
e at
hom
e. It
is th
e ai
m o
f KP
CT
to in
crea
se th
e ca
paci
ty o
f lo
cal h
ealth
faci
litie
s an
d th
e ef
fect
iven
ess
of h
ealth
y liv
ing
sche
mes
to re
duce
the
num
ber o
f pat
ient
s w
ho n
eed
to g
o to
the
hosp
itals
for t
reat
men
t. P
olic
y C
S2
is c
onsi
sten
t with
this
aim
.
Adu
lt Ed
ucat
ion
Faci
litie
s an
d Yo
uth
Cen
tres
C
S3
THE
CO
UN
CIL
WIL
L S
EE
K S
UIT
AB
LE S
ITE
S
FOR
AD
DIT
ION
AL
YO
UTH
AN
D C
OM
MU
NIT
Y
CE
NTR
ES
WH
ER
E T
HE
RE
IS A
DE
MA
ND
FO
R T
HE
IR P
RO
VIS
ION
AN
D W
ILL
CO
NS
IDE
R T
HE
RE
QU
IRE
ME
NT
TO
RE
PLA
CE
TH
ES
E A
ND
AD
ULT
ED
UC
ATI
ON
FA
CIL
ITIE
S A
FFE
CTE
D B
Y
RE
DE
VE
LOP
ME
NT
PR
OP
OS
ALS
IN T
HE
LI
GH
T O
F E
XIS
TIN
G A
ND
EX
PE
CTE
D
FUTU
RE
DE
MA
ND
.
N/
A
To b
e re
plac
ed in
th
e co
re
stra
tegy
an
d/or
de
velo
pmen
t co
ntro
l pol
icy
DP
Ds
i) P
art 1
pol
icie
s, e
spec
ially
STR
9 C
omm
unity
Ser
vice
s pr
ovid
e th
e ce
ntra
l stra
tegy
ii)
Pol
icy
CS
3 st
ates
the
Cou
ncils
inte
ntio
ns to
see
k su
itabl
e si
tes
for a
dditi
onal
you
th, a
dult
and
com
mun
ity c
entre
s. T
he
prov
isio
n of
suc
h fa
cilit
ies
is c
onsi
sten
t with
the
Com
mun
ity
Stra
tegy
: Hea
lth a
nd S
ocia
l Car
e ob
ject
ive
3: S
uppo
rting
th
ose
adul
ts w
ho n
eed
assi
stan
ce, o
bjec
tive
4: A
dvan
cing
the
heal
th a
nd w
elfa
re o
f chi
ldre
n an
d yo
ung
peop
le, a
nd
obje
ctiv
e 5:
Mak
ing
sure
that
peo
ple
can
acce
ss g
ood
serv
ices
and
are
trea
ted
fairl
y.
iii) T
he C
ounc
ils in
tent
ions
iden
tifie
d in
Pol
icy
CS
3 ar
e
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
cons
iste
nt w
ith th
e Lo
ndon
Pla
n P
olic
ies;
3A
.15
‘UD
P p
olic
ies
shou
ld a
sses
s th
e ne
ed fo
r soc
ial i
nfra
stru
ctur
e an
d co
mm
unity
faci
litie
s an
d sh
ould
see
k to
ens
ure
appr
opria
te
faci
litie
s ar
e pr
ovid
ed’…
.3A
.21
‘UD
P p
olic
ies
shou
ld p
rovi
de
for b
oth
the
expa
nsio
n of
exi
stin
g fa
cilit
ies
and
prov
isio
n of
ne
w e
duca
tiona
l fac
ilitie
s’ a
nd 3
A.2
2 to
‘Tak
e in
to a
ccou
nt th
e fu
ture
nee
ds o
f the
sec
tor.’
iv
) N
/A
v)
N/A
vi
) A
lone
, a m
arke
t led
app
roac
h is
unl
ikel
y to
pro
vide
site
s fo
r co
mm
unity
faci
litie
s. T
he p
olic
y is
nec
essa
ry to
ens
ure
that
w
here
nec
essa
ry th
e co
mm
unity
faci
litie
s re
ferre
d to
in th
e po
licy
are
re-p
rovi
ded
thro
ugh
rede
velo
pmen
t.
The
obje
ctiv
e of
Bui
ldin
g S
choo
ls fo
r the
Fut
ure
(201
1) is
to
rais
e th
e st
anda
rds
of s
choo
ls th
roug
h a
prog
ram
of e
xten
sive
as
set/b
uild
ing
mai
nten
ance
and
rede
velo
pmen
t, en
cour
agin
g th
e re
tent
ion
of s
urpl
us s
ites
for a
com
mun
ity fa
cilit
y or
ser
vice
us
e. T
he C
hild
ren
and
You
ng P
erso
ns P
lan
enco
urag
es th
e op
enin
g up
of s
choo
ls, p
artic
ular
ly fo
r you
ng m
othe
rs,
vuln
erab
le p
erso
ns a
nd d
isab
led
child
ren,
see
king
to e
nsur
e th
e in
tegr
atio
n of
all
serv
ices
ass
ocia
ted
with
you
ng p
erso
ns a
cros
s al
l dep
artm
ents
and
org
anis
atio
ns.
C
usto
mer
Fac
ilitie
s an
d C
onve
nien
ces
CS4
n/
a
N/
A
Dev
elop
men
t co
ntro
l po
licie
s
i) P
art 1
pol
icie
s, e
spec
ially
STR
9 C
omm
unity
Ser
vice
s pr
ovid
e th
e ce
ntra
l stra
tegy
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
THE
CO
UN
CIL
WIL
L R
EQ
UIR
E
DE
VE
LOP
ER
S O
F M
AJO
R D
EV
ELO
PM
EN
TS
WH
ICH
ATT
RA
CT
LAR
GE
NU
MB
ER
S O
F V
ISIT
OR
S/C
US
TOM
ER
S, S
UC
H A
S
SH
OP
PIN
G C
EN
TRE
S, P
UB
LIC
TR
AN
SP
OR
T IN
TER
CH
AN
GE
S, L
EIS
UR
E F
AC
ILIT
IES
, AN
D
LAR
GE
RE
TAIL
OU
TLE
TS, T
O P
RO
VID
E
AD
EQ
UA
TE T
OIL
ETS
AN
D B
AB
Y C
HA
NG
ING
FA
CIL
ITIE
S F
OR
TH
E U
SE
OF
THE
IR
CU
STO
ME
RS
. S
UC
H F
AC
ILIT
IES
SH
OU
LD
ME
ET
THE
NE
ED
S O
F C
AR
ER
S W
ITH
C
HIL
DR
EN
AN
D S
HO
ULD
BE
AC
CE
SS
IBLE
TO
ALL
.
ii) T
here
are
no
polic
ies
in th
e C
omm
unity
Stra
tegy
that
dire
ctly
re
late
to th
e pr
ovis
ions
of p
olic
y C
S4.
iii
) Lon
don
Pla
n po
licy
4B1
seek
s to
ens
ure
that
dev
elop
men
ts
are
acce
ssib
le a
nd u
sabl
e.
iv) N
/A
v)N
/A
vi) A
lthou
gh o
ther
legi
slat
ion*
pro
vide
s st
atut
ory
min
imum
st
anda
rds
for t
he p
rovi
sion
of p
ublic
con
veni
ence
s th
e po
licy
is
cons
ider
ed n
eces
sary
bec
ause
it g
ives
the
Cou
ncil
the
mea
ns to
m
ake
sure
this
issu
e is
cov
ered
fully
at t
he p
lann
ing
stag
e, fo
r ex
ampl
e in
pre
-app
licat
ion
disc
ussi
ons
over
the
desi
gn o
f the
de
velo
pmen
t. It
enab
les
the
Cou
ncil
to n
egot
iate
app
ropr
iate
qu
antit
ies,
des
igns
and
loca
tions
of p
ublic
con
veni
ence
pr
ovis
ion
with
app
lican
ts fo
r the
bet
term
ent o
f the
use
r. *T
he B
uild
ing
Reg
ulat
ions
(200
0) S
ched
ule
1 G
1 im
pose
s a
min
imum
requ
irem
ent f
or th
e pr
ovis
ion
of p
ublic
con
veni
ence
s,
Sch
edul
e 1
M3(
3) re
quire
s th
at if
pub
lic c
onve
nien
ces
are
prov
ided
in a
ny b
uild
ing
whi
ch is
not
a d
wel
ling,
reas
onab
le
prov
isio
n sh
all b
e m
ade
for d
isab
led
peop
le. T
he C
hron
ical
ly
Sic
k an
d D
isab
led
Per
sons
Act
(197
0) re
quire
s th
at ‘a
ny b
uild
ing
or p
rem
ises
to w
hich
the
publ
ic a
re to
be
adm
itted
… in
mea
ns o
f ac
cess
bot
h to
and
with
in th
e bu
ildin
g or
pre
mis
es …
and
sa
nita
ry c
onve
nien
ces
(if a
ny) m
ake
prov
isio
n …
for t
he n
eeds
of
the
mem
bers
of t
he p
ublic
… w
ho a
re d
isab
led.
’ The
Dis
abilit
y
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
Dis
crim
inat
ion
Act
(199
5) s
ectio
ns 2
1(2)
(a),
(b) a
nd (c
) req
uire
s th
e pr
ovid
ers
of g
oods
and
ser
vice
s to
the
publ
ic to
mak
e re
ason
able
adj
ustm
ents
to th
eir p
rem
ises
to fa
cilit
ate
acce
ss b
y di
sabl
ed p
erso
ns.
G
ypsi
es a
nd T
rave
llers
C
S5
THE
CO
UN
CIL
WIL
L R
ETA
IN T
HE
EX
ISTI
NG
TR
AV
ELL
ER
S’ C
AR
AV
AN
SIT
E A
T H
OO
K
RIS
E.
AN
Y P
RO
PO
SA
L FO
R A
NE
W S
ITE
S
HO
ULD
INC
LUD
E P
RO
VIS
ION
FO
R B
AS
IC
AM
EN
ITIE
S A
ND
SE
RV
ICE
S A
ND
WIL
L B
E
AS
SE
SS
ED
IN R
ELA
TIO
N T
O O
THE
R
PO
LIC
IES
IN T
HE
PLA
N, E
SP
EC
IALL
Y
THO
SE
CO
NC
ER
NE
D W
ITH
AC
CE
SS
, TR
AFF
IC G
EN
ER
ATI
ON
, AN
D
EN
VIR
ON
ME
NTA
L P
RO
TEC
TIO
N.
N/
A
Issu
e to
be
addr
esse
d in
th
e co
re
stra
tegy
and
if
nece
ssar
y th
e si
te a
lloca
tion
DP
D.
i) P
olic
y S
TR2
Hou
sing
Nee
d al
ong
with
oth
er P
art 1
pol
icie
s pr
ovid
es th
e ce
ntra
l stra
tegy
ii)
Obj
ectiv
e 2
of R
BK
’s C
omm
unity
Stra
tegy
is to
mee
t the
ne
eds
of K
ings
ton’
s di
vers
e co
mm
uniti
es, p
artic
ular
ly th
ose
who
are
dis
prop
ortio
nate
ly re
pres
ente
d. T
his
incl
udes
the
Gyp
sy a
nd T
rave
ller p
opul
atio
n.
iii)
The
Lond
on P
lan:
Pol
icy
3A.1
1: s
peci
fical
ly d
irect
s U
DP
’s
to p
rote
ct e
xist
ing
Gyp
sy a
nd T
rave
ller s
ites
and
to s
et o
ut
crite
ria fo
r ide
ntify
ing
the
suita
bilit
y of
new
site
s.
iv)
N/A
v)
N/A
vi
) P
olic
y C
5 do
es n
ot re
peat
nat
iona
l pol
icy.
Circ
ular
01/
06
Pla
nnin
g fo
r Gyp
sy a
nd T
rave
ller C
arav
an S
ites,
OD
PM,
2006
requ
ires
that
the
core
stra
tegy
sho
uld
set o
ut c
riter
ia fo
r th
e lo
catio
n of
gyp
sy a
nd tr
avel
ler s
ites
whi
ch w
ill b
e us
ed to
gu
ide
the
allo
catio
n of
site
s in
the
rele
vant
DP
D. I
n th
e ab
senc
e of
a C
ore
Stra
tegy
pol
icy
CS
5 sa
tisfie
s th
is
requ
irem
ent.
N
oise
B
E21
N/
A
To b
e re
plac
ed in
i)
Pol
icy
BE
21 a
dds
deta
il to
pol
icy
STR
11 P
ollu
tion
Con
trol
whi
ch s
eeks
to w
ork
tow
ards
redu
cing
pol
lutio
n (in
clud
ing
nois
e)
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
THE
CO
UN
CIL
WIL
L TA
KE
AC
CO
UN
T O
F A
MB
IEN
T N
OIS
E LE
VELS
WH
EN C
ON
SID
ERIN
G
THE
DEV
ELO
PMEN
T A
ND
USE
OF
LAN
D, A
ND
W
HER
E N
ECES
SAR
Y R
EQU
IRE
THE
INC
LUSI
ON
OF
MEA
SUR
ES T
O A
LLEV
IATE
N
OIS
E A
ND
AN
Y O
THER
FO
RM
OF
INTR
USI
ON
. A
DD
ITIO
NA
LLY
THE
CO
UN
CIL
WIL
L IM
POSE
C
ON
DIT
ION
S TO
RED
UC
E N
OIS
E LE
VELS
W
HER
E LO
CA
L A
MEN
ITY
OR
EN
VIR
ON
MEN
TAL
CO
ND
ITIO
NS
AR
E SE
RIO
USL
Y A
FFEC
TED
, AN
D O
PPO
SE
FUR
THER
DEV
ELO
PMEN
TS O
R C
HA
NG
ES IN
A
CTI
VITY
WH
ICH
WO
ULD
SIG
NIF
ICA
NTL
Y A
FFEC
T N
OIS
E LE
VELS
. IN
PA
RTI
CU
LAR
TH
E C
OU
NC
IL W
ILL
SEEK
QU
IETE
R C
ON
DIT
ION
S O
UTS
IDE
NO
RM
AL
WO
RK
ING
HO
UR
S A
ND
ON
SU
ND
AYS
.
the
core
st
rate
gy
and/
or
deve
lopm
ent
cont
rol
docu
men
ts
in th
e bo
roug
h.
ii) T
his
polic
y ha
s re
gard
to th
e E
nviro
nmen
t obj
ectiv
es o
f the
co
mm
unity
pla
n
iii) T
his
polic
y is
in g
ener
al c
onfo
rmity
with
Lon
don
Pla
n po
licy
4A.1
4 on
redu
cing
noi
se a
nd th
e M
ayor
’s a
mbi
ent n
oise
st
rate
gy.
iv) N
/A
v) N
/A
vi) P
PG
24
Pla
nnin
g an
d N
oise
(par
as 3
– 7
) req
uire
s U
DP
par
t 2
to in
clud
e po
licie
s on
noi
se
Tran
spor
t Saf
ety
T1
DEV
ELO
PMEN
T PR
OPO
SALS
(IN
CLU
DIN
G
THO
SE R
EQU
IRED
FO
R V
EHIC
LE
CR
OSS
OVE
RS)
, HIG
HW
AY
AN
D T
RA
FFIC
M
AN
AG
EMEN
T SC
HEM
ES A
ND
PU
BLI
C
TRA
NSP
OR
T PR
OPO
SALS
WIL
L B
E A
SSES
SED
HA
VIN
G R
EGA
RD
TO
TH
EIR
SA
FETY
IMPL
ICA
TIO
NS
AN
D P
AR
TIC
ULA
RLY
TH
E EF
FEC
TS T
HEY
HA
VE O
N V
ULN
ERA
BLE
n/
a
To b
e re
plac
ed in
th
e de
velo
pmen
t co
ntro
l pol
icy
DP
D
i) P
art 1
pol
icie
s pr
ovid
e th
e ce
ntra
l stra
tegy
, as
does
the
Loca
l Im
plem
enta
tion
Pla
n
ii) T
his
polic
y di
rect
ly u
phol
ds P
riorit
y 4
(Roa
d S
afet
y), i
n th
e C
omm
unity
Pla
n Tr
ansp
ort c
hapt
er.
iii) T
his
polic
y br
oadl
y su
ppor
ts L
ondo
n P
lan
polic
ies
4B.4
(E
nhan
cing
the
qual
ity o
f the
pub
lic re
alm
), an
d 4B
.5 (C
reat
ing
an in
clus
ive
envi
ronm
ent).
How
ever
, it d
oesn
’t di
rect
ly s
uppo
rt th
e Lo
ndon
Pla
n be
caus
e it’
s a
spec
ific
deve
lopm
ent c
ontro
l po
licy.
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
RO
AD
USE
RS
SUC
H A
S PE
DES
TRIA
NS,
C
YCLI
STS,
FR
AIL
ELD
ERLY
PEO
PLE
AN
D
PEO
PLE
WIT
H D
ISA
BIL
ITIE
S. D
ECIS
ION
S W
ILL
BE
TAK
EN H
AVI
NG
REG
AR
D T
O:
(I)
TH
E LE
VEL
OF
PED
ESTR
IAN
AC
TIVI
TY
(II)
VIS
IBIL
ITY
(III)
TR
AFF
IC F
LOW
S (IV
) PA
RK
ING
CO
ND
ITIO
NS
IN T
HE
LOC
ALI
TY
(V)
PR
OXI
MIT
Y O
F TH
E PR
OPO
SED
D
EVEL
OPM
ENT
TO R
OA
D J
UN
CTI
ON
S,
TRA
FFIC
SIG
NA
LS, P
EDES
TRIA
N C
RO
SSIN
GS
AN
D O
THER
H
IGH
WA
Y FE
ATU
RES
(V
I) A
CC
ESS
AR
RA
NG
EMEN
TS O
F A
DJO
ININ
G
PRO
PER
TIES
.
iv) N
/A
v) N
/A
vi) T
his
polic
y do
es n
ot re
peat
hig
her l
evel
pol
icy.
It is
nec
essa
ry
to e
nsur
e th
at d
evel
opm
ents
hav
e re
gard
to h
ighw
ay s
afet
y.
This
pol
icy
is n
eces
sary
with
rega
rd to
a ra
nge
of re
gion
al a
nd
Gov
ernm
ent p
olic
ies
and
targ
ets,
for e
xam
ple
road
saf
ety
targ
ets,
acc
essi
bilit
y fo
r dis
able
d pe
ople
, and
faci
litat
ing
safe
en
viro
nmen
ts fo
r cyc
ling
and
wal
king
.
Res
tric
tion
on D
eliv
ery
Hou
rs
T2
IN C
ON
SID
ERIN
G P
LAN
NIN
G A
PPLI
CA
TIO
NS
THE
CO
UN
CIL
WIL
L, IN
APP
RO
PRIA
TE C
ASE
S,
RES
TRIC
T TH
E H
OU
RS
OF
DEL
IVER
Y TO
C
OM
MER
CIA
L PR
OPE
RTY
WIT
H T
HE
AIM
OF
MIN
IMIS
ING
EN
VIR
ON
MEN
TAL
INTR
USI
ON
A
ND
DIS
TUR
BA
NC
E, O
R O
THER
WIS
E LI
MIT
ING
TH
E IM
PAC
T O
F SU
CH
AC
TIVI
TIES
ON
TH
E SU
RR
OU
ND
ING
AR
EA A
ND
RO
AD
NET
WO
RK
, O
R E
NA
BLI
NG
“TI
ME
SHA
RE”
n/
a
To b
e re
plac
ed in
th
e de
velo
pmen
t co
ntro
l pol
icy
DP
D
i) P
art 1
pol
icie
s pr
ovid
e th
e ce
ntra
l stra
tegy
, as
does
the
Loca
l Im
plem
enta
tion
Pla
n ii)
Thi
s po
licy
but c
ould
ass
ist i
n so
me
Com
mun
ity P
lan,
aim
s,
such
as
Prio
rity
6 in
the
Tran
spor
t cha
pter
(Roa
d N
etw
ork
Man
agem
ent).
iii
) Thi
s po
licy
supp
orts
Lon
don
Pla
n po
licy
4A.1
4 (R
educ
ing
nois
e).
vi) N
/A
v) N
/A
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
PED
ESTR
IAN
ISA
TIO
N O
R S
IMIL
AR
SC
HEM
ES
TO B
E IM
PLEM
ENTE
D.
vi) T
his
polic
y do
es n
ot re
peat
hig
her l
evel
pol
icy.
It is
a lo
cal
leve
l pol
icy
bala
ncin
g th
e re
quire
men
ts o
f com
mer
cial
inte
rest
s an
d th
e ne
eds
of th
e lo
cal c
omm
unity
.
M
anag
emen
t and
Impr
ovem
ent o
f the
Se
cond
ary
Roa
d N
etw
ork
T4
THE
CO
UN
CIL
WIL
L IM
PLEM
ENT
IMPR
OVE
MEN
TS T
O T
HE
SEC
ON
DA
RY
RO
AD
N
ETW
OR
K T
O B
ENEF
IT T
HE
LOC
AL
ECO
NO
MY,
WH
ERE
APP
RO
PRIA
TE; T
O
ELIM
INA
TE R
ECO
GN
ISED
BO
TTLE
NEC
KS;
IM
PRO
VE R
OA
D S
AFE
TY; O
R P
RO
VID
E FO
R
THE
REM
OVA
L O
F A
NY
THR
OU
GH
TR
AFF
IC
FRO
M L
OC
AL
AC
CES
S R
OA
DS.
IN D
OIN
G S
O
THE
CO
UN
CIL
WIL
L:
I)
ENSU
RE
AT
LEA
ST O
NE
TRA
FFIC
LA
NE
IN E
AC
H D
IREC
TIO
N
BET
WEE
N J
UN
CTI
ON
S IS
M
AIN
TAIN
ED, A
ND
AVA
ILA
BLE
FO
R
TRA
FFIC
USE
, IR
RES
PEC
TIVE
OF
AN
Y SP
ECIF
IC L
OC
AL
AD
DIT
ION
AL
REQ
UIR
EMEN
TS, F
OR
EXA
MPL
E U
SE F
OR
BU
SES,
CYC
LES,
OR
ON
-ST
REE
T PA
RK
ING
; II)
C
ON
TRO
L N
EW D
EVEL
OPM
ENT
TO
n/
a
To b
e re
plac
ed in
th
e co
re
stra
tegy
an
d/or
de
velo
pmen
t co
ntro
l po
licie
s D
PD
i) P
art 1
pol
icie
s pr
ovid
e th
e ce
ntra
l stra
tegy
, as
does
the
Loca
l Im
plem
enta
tion
Pla
n
ii) T
his
polic
y up
hold
s P
riorit
y 6
(Roa
d N
etw
ork
Man
agem
ent)
in
the
Com
mun
ity P
lan
Tran
spor
t cha
pter
, and
rela
tes
to P
riorit
y 4
(Roa
d S
afet
y). I
t als
o co
ntrib
utes
to th
e O
vera
ll Tr
ansp
ort
Obj
ectiv
e to
prio
ritis
e w
alki
ng, c
yclin
g an
d pu
blic
tran
spor
t.
iii) T
his
polic
y is
in g
ener
al c
onfo
rmity
with
Lon
don
Pla
n po
licy
3C.1
5 (R
oad
sche
me
prop
osal
s), a
nd b
road
ly s
uppo
rts p
olic
ies
3C.1
7 (A
lloca
tion
of s
treet
spa
ce),
3C.1
8 (L
ocal
are
a tra
nspo
rt tre
atm
ents
), 3C
.19
(Impr
ovin
g co
nditi
ons
for b
uses
), an
d 3C
.20
(Impr
ovin
g co
nditi
ons
for w
alki
ng).
iv
) N/A
v)
N/A
vi
) Thi
s po
licy
does
not
repe
at h
ighe
r lev
el p
olic
y, re
ferr
ing
to
spec
ific
junc
tion
impr
ovem
ents
that
are
nec
essa
ry in
the
boro
ugh.
The
pol
icy
is h
elpf
ul to
the
Cou
ncil
whe
n m
akin
g bi
ds
to T
rans
port
for L
ondo
n fo
r the
junc
tion
impr
ovem
ents
spe
cifie
d in
the
polic
y’s
supp
ortin
g te
xt.
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
ENSU
RE
THA
T SU
CH
A T
RA
FFIC
LA
NE
IS A
VAIL
AB
LE F
OR
TR
AFF
IC
USE
AT
ALL
TIM
ES T
HR
OU
GH
OU
T TH
E D
AY;
III
) H
AVE
PA
RTI
CU
LAR
REG
AR
D T
O
THE
NEE
D F
OR
IM
PRO
VEM
ENTS
TO
BU
S, C
YCLE
AN
D P
EDES
TRIA
N
FAC
ILIT
IES
AN
D T
HE
NEE
DS
OF
PEO
PLE
WIT
H D
ISA
BIL
ITIE
S W
HEN
ES
TAB
LISH
ING
TH
E PR
IOR
ITIE
S FO
R T
HE
USE
OF
AN
Y SU
RPL
US
RO
AD
SPA
CE
IN A
DD
ITIO
N T
O T
HE
TRA
FFIC
LA
NE
IN U
SE.
THE
CO
UN
CIL
IS C
AR
RYI
NG
OU
T A
PH
ASE
D P
RO
GR
AM
ME
OF
CO
RR
IDO
R S
TUD
IES
TO ID
ENTI
FY
SUC
H IM
PRO
VEM
ENTS
AN
D H
AS
SO F
AR
IDEN
TIFI
ED T
HE
NEE
D F
OR
IM
PRO
VEM
ENTS
TO
SEL
ECTE
D
JUN
CTI
ON
S W
HIC
H A
RE
SHO
WN
O
N T
HE
PRO
POSA
LS M
AP.
Lo
cal D
istr
ibut
or R
oads
T5
TH
E C
OU
NC
IL W
ILL,
WH
ERE
PRA
CTI
CA
L,
DO
WN
GR
AD
E TH
E TH
RO
UG
H T
RA
FFIC
FU
NC
TIO
NS
OF
LOC
AL
DIS
TRIB
UTO
R R
OA
DS
TO G
IVE
PRIO
RIT
Y TO
TH
E R
ESID
ENTI
AL
n/
a
Poss
ibly
incl
. in
LIP
at
revi
ew a
nd
then
del
ete
from
U
DP
/LD
F.
i) P
art 1
pol
icie
s pr
ovid
e th
e ce
ntra
l stra
tegy
, as
does
the
Loca
l Im
plem
enta
tion
Pla
n ii)
Thi
s po
licy
supp
orts
the
over
all o
bjec
tives
of t
he C
omm
unity
P
lan
Tran
spor
t and
Env
ironm
ent c
hapt
ers.
iii
) Thi
s po
licy
gene
rally
con
form
s to
Lon
don
Pla
n po
licy
3C.1
5
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
ENVI
RO
NM
ENT
AN
D, W
HER
E N
ECES
SAR
Y,
INTR
OD
UC
E TR
AFF
IC C
ALM
ING
MEA
SUR
ES
TO L
IMIT
TH
E SP
EED
AN
D V
OLU
ME
OF
TRA
FFIC
USI
NG
SU
CH
RO
AD
S.
(Roa
d sc
hem
e pr
opos
als)
. It s
uppo
rts p
olic
y 3C
.17
(Allo
catio
n of
st
reet
spa
ce),
polic
ies
4B.4
(Enh
anci
ng th
e qu
ality
of t
he p
ublic
re
alm
), an
d 4B
.5 (C
reat
ing
an in
clus
ive
envi
ronm
ent)
and
3C.2
0 (Im
prov
ing
cond
ition
s fo
r wal
king
).
iv) N
/A
v) N
/A
vi) T
his
polic
y do
es n
ot u
nnec
essa
rily
repe
at h
ighe
r lev
el p
olic
y.
It is
a n
eces
sary
loca
l lev
el p
olic
y de
sign
ed to
redr
ess
the
bala
nce
betw
een
vehi
cles
(in
parti
cula
r fas
t tra
velli
ng v
ehic
les)
an
d th
e ne
eds
of p
eopl
e, in
env
ironm
ents
whi
ch a
re re
side
ntia
l. Th
is is
fully
in li
ne w
ith th
e ob
ject
ives
of a
rang
e of
nat
iona
l and
re
gion
al tr
ansp
ort p
olic
y su
ch a
s th
e G
over
nmen
t’s W
hite
Pap
er
on T
rans
port
(199
8) a
nd th
e M
ayor
’s T
rans
port
Stra
tegy
for
Lond
on.
Traf
fic C
alm
ing
in N
ew D
evel
opm
ents
T7
TH
E C
OU
NC
IL W
ILL
ENSU
RE
THA
T IN
ALL
N
EW D
EVEL
OPM
ENTS
INC
OR
POR
ATI
NG
TH
E PR
OVI
SIO
N O
F LO
CA
L O
R A
CC
ESS
RO
AD
S,
SUC
H R
OA
DS
AR
E D
ESIG
NED
AN
D
CO
NST
RU
CTE
D T
O IN
CO
RPO
RA
TE C
UR
REN
T TR
AFF
IC C
ALM
ING
MEA
SUR
ES A
ND
TE
CH
NIQ
UES
, PA
RTI
CU
LAR
LY IN
RES
PEC
T O
F C
ON
TRO
LLIN
G S
PEED
S A
ND
SEC
UR
ING
AN
A
TTR
AC
TIVE
AN
D S
AFE
EN
VIR
ON
MEN
T.
n/
a
To b
e re
plac
ed in
a
deve
lopm
ent
cont
rol p
olic
y D
PD
i) P
art 1
pol
icie
s pr
ovid
e th
e ce
ntra
l stra
tegy
, as
does
the
Loca
l Im
plem
enta
tion
Pla
n ii)
Thi
s po
licy
dire
ctly
uph
olds
Prio
rity
4 (R
oad
Saf
ety)
, in
the
Com
mun
ity P
lan
Tran
spor
t cha
pter
, and
cou
ld c
ontri
bute
to a
ta
rget
to re
duce
KS
Is in
volv
ing
vuln
erab
le ro
ad u
sers
(Yea
r 5
Pla
n, a
.).
It al
so c
ontri
bute
s to
the
Ove
rall
Tran
spor
t Obj
ectiv
e fo
r a ‘f
aire
r ba
lanc
e be
twee
n re
side
nts
and
trave
llers
,…’.
iii
) Thi
s po
licy
broa
dly
supp
orts
Lon
don
Pla
n po
licy
4B.4
(E
nhan
cing
the
qual
ity o
f the
pub
lic re
alm
).
It
very
bro
adly
sup
ports
Lon
don
Pla
n po
licy
3C.2
0 (Im
prov
ing
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
cond
ition
s fo
r wal
king
), an
d 4B
.1 (D
esig
n pr
inci
ples
for a
co
mpa
ct c
ity).
v)
N/A
vi
) Thi
s po
licy
does
not
repe
at h
ighe
r lev
el p
olic
y. It
is n
eces
sary
to
ens
ure
the
‘bui
ldin
g in
’ of m
eans
to c
reat
e sa
fe a
nd a
ttrac
tive
livin
g an
d w
orki
ng e
nviro
nmen
ts w
hich
are
not
sol
ely
desi
gned
to
be
acce
ssib
le fo
r tho
se in
veh
icle
s. T
his
is in
kee
ping
with
a
rang
e of
nat
iona
l and
regi
onal
pol
icy
for r
oad
safe
ty, b
alan
cing
th
e ne
eds
of a
rang
e of
road
use
rs, a
nd c
reat
ing
attra
ctiv
e an
d in
clus
ive
envi
ronm
ents
for p
eopl
e.
Lorr
y R
oute
s T8
FO
R E
NVI
RO
NM
ENTA
L A
ND
AM
ENIT
Y R
EASO
NS,
TH
E C
OU
NC
IL S
UPP
OR
TS IN
PR
INC
IPLE
TH
E PR
OVI
SIO
N O
F LO
RR
Y R
OU
TES
AN
D W
ILL
INTR
OD
UC
E LO
CA
L ZO
NA
L LO
RR
Y B
AN
S FO
R H
EAVY
GO
OD
S VE
HIC
LES
WH
ERE
IT W
OU
LD IM
PRO
VE
AM
ENIT
Y, R
EDU
CE
CO
NG
ESTI
ON
OR
RED
UC
E R
OA
D T
RA
FFIC
HA
ZAR
DS.
n/
a
To b
e re
plac
ed in
th
e C
ore
stra
tegy
or
deve
lopm
ent
cont
rol p
olic
y D
PD
i) P
art 1
pol
icie
s pr
ovid
e th
e ce
ntra
l stra
tegy
, as
does
the
Loca
l Im
plem
enta
tion
Pla
n .
ii) T
his
polic
y co
ntrib
utes
to P
riorit
y 6
(Roa
d N
etw
ork
Man
agem
ent)
in th
e C
omm
unity
Pla
n Tr
ansp
ort c
hapt
er.
iii) T
his
polic
y br
oadl
y su
ppor
ts L
ondo
n P
lan
polic
y 4A
.14
(Red
ucin
g no
ise)
.
iv) N
/A
v) N
/A
vi) T
his
polic
y do
es n
ot re
peat
hig
her l
evel
pol
icy.
It is
nec
essa
ry
as a
pra
ctic
al o
ptio
n to
ens
ure
freig
ht u
ses
the
mos
t sui
tabl
e ro
utes
.
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
Bus
Prio
rity
Mea
sure
s T9
TH
E C
OU
NC
IL W
ILL
IMPL
EMEN
T SC
HEM
ES,
INC
LUD
ING
TH
OSE
PA
RTS
OF
THE
LON
DO
N
BU
S PR
IOR
ITY
NET
WO
RK
TH
AT
FALL
WIT
HIN
TH
E B
OR
OU
GH
, WH
ICH
MIT
IGA
TE T
HE
EFFE
CTS
OF
TRA
FFIC
CO
NG
ESTI
ON
ON
TH
E R
ELIA
BIL
ITY
OF
BU
S SE
RVI
CES
, FO
R T
HE
PUR
POSE
S O
F IM
PRO
VIN
G A
CC
ESSI
BIL
ITY
BY
PUB
LIC
TR
AN
SPO
RT.
n/
a
To b
e re
plac
ed in
th
e C
ore
stra
tegy
i) P
art 1
pol
icie
s pr
ovid
e th
e ce
ntra
l stra
tegy
, as
does
the
Loca
l Im
plem
enta
tion
Pla
n
ii) T
his
polic
y co
ntrib
utes
to P
riorit
y 1
(Mor
e at
tract
ive
publ
ic
trans
port)
, in
the
Com
mun
ity P
lan
Tran
spor
t cha
pter
, and
the
Ove
rall
Tran
spor
t Obj
ectiv
e of
sus
tain
able
and
acc
essi
ble
trans
port.
iii)
Thi
s po
licy
dire
ctly
sup
ports
Lon
don
Pla
n po
licy
3C.9
(In
crea
sing
the
capa
city
, qua
lity
and
inte
grat
ion
of p
ublic
tra
nspo
rt to
mee
t Lon
don’
s ne
eds)
, pol
icy
3C.1
3 (E
nhan
ced
bus
prio
rity,
tram
and
bus
tran
sit s
chem
es),
and
3C.1
9 (Im
prov
ing
cond
ition
s fo
r bus
es).
It su
ppor
ts p
olic
y 2A
.5 (T
own
cent
res)
. iv
) N/A
v)
N/A
vi
) Thi
s po
licy
does
not
repe
at h
ighe
r lev
el p
olic
y. It
is a
ne
cess
ary
polic
y, re
flect
ing
for t
he lo
cal a
rea
the
regi
onal
re
quire
men
t (M
ayor
’s T
rans
port
Pla
n/Lo
ndon
Pla
n) to
impr
ove
the
relia
bilit
y of
bus
es s
o th
at th
ey b
ecom
e m
ore
viab
le, a
llow
ing
mor
e pe
ople
to s
witc
h m
ode
from
car
s, th
us re
duci
ng
cong
estio
n an
d ve
hicl
e em
issi
ons
(ove
rall)
. Thi
s is
als
o ve
ry
muc
h in
line
with
Gov
ernm
ent t
rans
port
polic
y w
hich
aim
s to
re
duce
car
use
. Th
e Lo
ndon
Pla
n do
es s
peci
fical
ly re
quire
that
[U
DP
s] h
ave
polic
ies
supp
ortin
g th
is, e
g 3C
.19.
Pu
blic
Tra
nspo
rt A
cces
sibi
lity
T11
n/
a
To b
e re
plac
ed in
th
e C
ore
i) P
art 1
pol
icie
s pr
ovid
e th
e ce
ntra
l stra
tegy
, as
does
the
Loca
l Im
plem
enta
tion
Pla
n
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
THE
CO
UN
CIL
’S T
RA
NSP
OR
T ST
RA
TEG
Y EN
CO
UR
AG
ES T
HE
USE
OF
PUB
LIC
TR
AN
SPO
RT.
AC
CO
RD
ING
LY IT
WIL
L SU
PPO
RT
IMPR
OVE
MEN
TS T
O T
RA
IN A
ND
B
US
SER
VIC
ES A
ND
FA
CIL
ITIE
S A
ND
WH
EN
CO
NSI
DER
ING
PR
OPO
SALS
INVO
LVIN
G
AC
CES
S/TR
AVE
L B
Y SI
GN
IFIC
AN
T N
UM
BER
S O
F PE
OPL
E, T
HE
LOC
ATI
ON
, FR
EQU
ENC
Y A
ND
SC
OPE
OF
PUB
LIC
TR
AN
SPO
RT
SER
VIC
ES W
ILL
BE
A M
ATE
RIA
L C
ON
SID
ERA
TIO
N.
stra
tegy
or
deve
lopm
ent
cont
rol p
olic
y D
PD
ii) T
his
polic
y di
rect
ly re
late
s to
Prio
rity
7 (P
lann
ing
sust
aina
ble
com
mun
ities
…) i
n th
e C
omm
unity
Pla
n Tr
ansp
ort c
hapt
er, a
nd
supp
orts
Prio
rity
1 (M
ore
attra
ctiv
e pu
blic
tran
spor
t), P
riorit
y 8
(…in
tegr
atio
n of
tran
spor
t mod
es),
and
the
Ove
rall
Tran
spor
t O
bjec
tive
of s
usta
inab
le a
nd a
cces
sibl
e tra
nspo
rt.
iii) T
his
polic
y su
ppor
ts L
ondo
n P
lan
polic
y 2A
.1 (S
usta
inab
ility
crite
ria).
It di
rect
ly s
uppo
rts p
olic
ies
3C.1
(Int
egra
ting
trans
port
and
deve
lopm
ent),
3C
.2 (M
atch
ing
deve
lopm
ent t
o tra
nspo
rt ca
paci
ty),
3C.3
(Sus
tain
able
tran
spor
t in
Lond
on),
3C.9
(In
crea
sing
the
capa
city
, qua
lity
and
inte
grat
ion
of p
ublic
tra
nspo
rt to
mee
t Lon
don’
s ne
eds)
, and
3C
.13
(Enh
ance
d bu
s pr
iorit
y, tr
am a
nd b
us tr
ansi
t sch
emes
).
It al
so s
uppo
rts 3
C.8
(Im
prov
ing
stra
tegi
c ra
il se
rvic
es),
3C.1
9 (Im
prov
ing
cond
ition
s fo
r bus
es),
and
polic
y 2A
.6 (S
patia
l st
rate
gy fo
r the
sub
urbs
).
vi) N
/A
v) N
/A
vi) T
his
polic
y do
es n
ot re
peat
hig
her l
evel
pol
icy.
It is
nec
essa
ry
beca
use
(mai
nly
the
seco
nd p
art o
f it)
refle
cts
the
prin
cipl
es o
f P
PS
13 (T
rans
port)
, for
loca
ting
maj
or tr
ip g
ener
ator
s cl
ose
to
avai
labl
e pu
blic
tran
spor
t, in
ord
er to
avo
id g
ener
atin
g la
rge
num
bers
of c
ar tr
ips.
Thi
s po
licy
is a
lso
spec
ifica
lly re
quire
d by
th
e Lo
ndon
Pla
n, e
g. P
olic
y 3C
.1 In
tegr
atin
g tra
nspo
rt an
d de
velo
pmen
t
Pede
stria
n N
etw
ork
n/
a
To b
e i)
Par
t 1 p
olic
ies
prov
ide
the
cent
ral s
trate
gy, a
s do
es th
e Lo
cal
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
T14
THE
CO
UN
CIL
WIL
L EN
CO
UR
AG
E W
ALK
ING
A
S A
N E
FFEC
TIVE
MEA
NS
OF
TRA
VEL
THR
OU
GH
A G
ENER
AL
IMPR
OVE
MEN
T O
F FA
CIL
ITIE
S FO
R P
EDES
TRIA
NS
AN
D W
ILL:
(I)
EN
SUR
E TH
AT
A S
AFE
R P
EDES
TRIA
N
ENVI
RO
NM
ENT
IS S
ECU
RED
WH
EN
DES
IGN
ING
NEW
SC
HEM
ES F
OR
TO
WN
C
ENTR
E ST
REE
TS A
ND
AR
EAS,
SH
OPP
ING
PA
RA
DES
AN
D IN
CA
SES
WH
ERE
TRA
FFIC
C
ALM
ING
MEA
SUR
ES A
RE
INTR
OD
UC
ED;
(II)
INTR
OD
UC
E PE
DES
TRIA
N R
OU
TES
WH
ERE
APP
RO
PRIA
TE, P
AR
TIC
ULA
RLY
IN
THE
CO
NTE
XT O
F R
EDEV
ELO
PMEN
T;
(III)
RES
IST
FOO
TWA
Y PA
RK
ING
, OTH
ER
THA
N IN
EXC
EPTI
ON
AL
CIR
CU
MST
AN
CES
, W
HER
E TH
ERE
IS A
DEQ
UA
TE F
OO
TWA
Y W
IDTH
TO
PR
OVI
DE
A P
RO
PER
AN
D S
AFE
PA
SSA
GE
FOR
PED
ESTR
IAN
S;
(IV)
ENSU
RE
THA
T TH
E N
EED
S O
F PE
OPL
E W
ITH
DIS
AB
ILIT
IES
AR
E TA
KEN
INTO
A
CC
OU
NT
IN T
HE
DES
IGN
AN
D
CO
NST
RU
CTI
ON
OF
ALL
NEW
FO
OTW
AY
AN
D
PAVI
NG
SC
HEM
ES;
(V)
GIV
E A
HIG
H P
RIO
RIT
Y TO
TH
E N
EED
S O
F PE
DES
TRIA
NS
WH
ERE
THEY
MIG
HT
REA
SON
AB
LY N
EED
TO
CR
OSS
TR
AFF
IC
RO
UTE
S, A
ND
WH
ERE
APP
RO
PRIA
TE
repl
aced
in
the
Cor
e st
rate
gy o
r de
velo
pmen
t co
ntro
l pol
icy
DP
D
Impl
emen
tatio
n P
lan
ii)
Thi
s po
licy
dire
ctly
sup
ports
Prio
rity
8 (E
ffici
ent t
rans
port
infra
stru
ctur
e an
d in
tegr
atio
n of
tran
spor
t mod
es),
in th
e C
omm
unity
Pla
n, in
par
ticul
ar Y
ear 1
Pla
n c.
, and
Prio
rity
2 (W
alki
ng fa
cilit
ies
and
prom
otio
n).
It a
lso
gene
rally
sup
ports
P
riorit
y 4
(Roa
d S
afet
y), a
nd c
ontri
bute
s to
the
Ove
rall
Tran
spor
t O
bjec
tive
of s
usta
inab
le a
nd a
cces
sibl
e tra
nspo
rt. I
t als
o su
ppor
ts p
riorit
ies
from
oth
er C
omm
unity
Pla
n ch
apte
rs, s
uch
as
Env
ironm
ent P
riorit
y 3
(Loc
al e
nviro
nmen
t), a
nd L
ocal
Eco
nom
y P
riorit
y 4
(Dis
trict
and
Loc
al C
entre
s…).
iii)
Thi
s po
licy
dire
ctly
sup
ports
Lon
don
Pla
n po
licy
3C.3
(S
usta
inab
le tr
ansp
ort i
n Lo
ndon
), an
d su
ppor
ts 3
C.2
0 (Im
prov
ing
cond
ition
s fo
r wal
king
). It
broa
dly
supp
orts
Lon
don
Pla
n po
licie
s 4B
.4 (E
nhan
cing
the
qual
ity o
f the
pub
lic re
alm
) an
d, w
ith th
e ju
stifi
catio
n no
tes,
sup
ports
4B
.5 (C
reat
ing
an
incl
usiv
e en
viro
nmen
t).
iv) N
/A
v) N
/A
vi) T
his
polic
y do
es n
ot re
peat
hig
her l
evel
pol
icy.
It is
nec
essa
ry
for e
nsur
ing
that
ped
estri
ans
are
take
n in
to a
ccou
nt a
t the
de
sign
sta
ge o
f sch
emes
. The
re is
a ra
nge
of G
over
nmen
t and
R
egio
nal p
olic
y, in
clud
ing
the
Lond
on W
alki
ng P
lan,
aim
ed a
t en
cour
agin
g w
alki
ng a
nd im
prov
ing
cond
ition
s fo
r ped
estri
ans,
as
wel
l as
impr
ovin
g th
e pu
blic
real
m. P
rom
otin
g an
d im
prov
ing
cond
ition
s fo
r ped
estri
ans
supp
orts
the
Cou
ncil’s
tran
spor
t pol
icy
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
PRO
VID
E SU
ITA
BLE
CR
OSS
ING
FA
CIL
ITIE
S.
w
hich
is to
enc
oura
ge th
e us
e of
non
-car
mod
es a
s m
uch
as
poss
ible
. T
he d
elet
ion
of o
ther
pla
n po
licie
s re
lies
on th
is
polic
y be
ing
save
d.
O
vern
ight
Lor
ry P
arki
ng
T16
THE
CO
UN
CIL
WIL
L, F
OR
TH
E PU
RPO
SES
OF
PRO
TEC
TIN
G R
ESID
ENTI
AL
AM
ENIT
Y,
OPE
RA
TE A
BA
N O
N O
VER
NIG
HT
ON
-STR
EET
LOR
RY
PAR
KIN
G O
THER
TH
AN
IN R
OA
DS
LOC
ATE
D E
XCLU
SIVE
LY O
N IN
DU
STR
IAL
ESTA
TES.
n/
a n/
a n/
a
To b
e re
plac
ed in
th
e C
ore
stra
tegy
or
deve
lopm
ent
cont
rol p
olic
y D
PD
i) P
art 1
pol
icie
s pr
ovid
e th
e ce
ntra
l stra
tegy
, as
does
the
Loca
l Im
plem
enta
tion
Pla
n ii)
Not
an
issu
e co
vere
d by
the
Com
mun
ity P
lan.
iii)
Not
an
issu
e co
vere
d in
the
Lond
on P
lan.
iv
) N/A
v)
N/A
. vi
) Thi
s po
licy
does
not
repe
at h
ighe
r lev
el p
olic
y. It
is n
eces
sary
fo
r pro
tect
ing
the
amen
ity o
f loc
al re
side
nts.
Tem
pora
ry C
ar P
arki
ng
T26
THE
CO
UN
CIL
WIL
L SE
EK A
GR
EEM
ENTS
WIT
H
OW
NER
S O
F SU
ITA
BLE
SIT
ES A
WA
ITIN
G
RED
EVEL
OPM
ENT
IN K
ING
STO
N T
OW
N
CEN
TRE
AN
D T
HE
DIS
TRIC
T C
ENTR
ES,
TAK
ING
AC
CO
UN
T O
F EN
VIR
ON
MEN
TAL
AN
D
TRA
FFIC
IMPL
ICA
TIO
NS,
TO
USE
TH
E SI
TES
FOR
TEM
POR
AR
Y C
AR
PA
RK
S,
PAR
TIC
ULA
RLY
TO
MEE
T A
NY
SHO
RTF
ALL
S IN
TH
E C
ENTR
E O
R T
O A
DD
RES
S U
ND
ER-
n/
a
To b
e re
plac
ed b
y th
e K
ings
ton
Tow
n ce
ntre
ar
ea a
ctio
n pl
an.
i) P
art 1
pol
icie
s pr
ovid
e th
e ce
ntra
l stra
tegy
, as
does
the
Loca
l Im
plem
enta
tion
Pla
n
ii) T
his
polic
y su
ppor
ts th
e C
omm
unity
Pla
n ob
ject
ive
to h
ave
effic
ient
tran
spor
t inf
rast
ruct
ure.
iii
) Lon
don
Pla
n po
licy
3C.2
2 (P
arki
ng s
trate
gy) s
eeks
to
“…ge
nera
lly re
sist
the
intro
duct
ion
of te
mpo
rary
car
par
ks…
”.
alth
ough
the
supp
ortin
g te
xt a
t par
a. 3
.213
ack
now
ledg
es th
at
“ther
e m
ay b
e ci
rcum
stan
ces
in w
hich
tem
pora
ry s
pace
s m
ay b
e al
low
ed o
n co
nditi
on th
at th
ese
are
with
draw
n w
hen
bette
r pu
blic
tran
spor
t bec
omes
ava
ilabl
e”.
This
is c
onsi
sten
t with
the
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
PRO
VISI
ON
AT
TIM
ES O
F PE
AK
DEM
AN
D.
inte
ntio
n of
Pol
icy
T26
whi
ch, w
ith it
s su
ppor
ting
text
, mak
es
clea
r tha
t suc
h ca
r par
ks w
ould
be
tem
pora
ry p
endi
ng p
ublic
tra
nspo
rt im
prov
emen
ts, a
nd o
bvio
usly
onl
y fo
r as
long
as
the
site
rem
ains
und
evel
oped
for a
n al
tern
ativ
e us
e. I
n th
e co
ntex
t of
maj
or to
wn
cent
re re
deve
lopm
ent a
t Kin
gsto
n te
mpo
rary
car
pa
rks
secu
red
this
way
may
wel
l be
nece
ssar
y to
ens
ure
that
th
e pa
rkin
g ta
rget
in th
e K
ings
ton
tow
n ce
ntre
are
a ac
tion
plan
ca
n be
met
.
iv) N
/A
v) N
/A
vi) W
hils
t the
Lon
don
Pla
n re
fers
tem
pora
ry c
ar p
arks
, pol
icy
T26
is n
ot re
petit
ion,
mak
ing
clea
r thi
s ap
proa
ch a
pplie
s to
the
tow
n an
d di
stric
t cen
tres.
O
ff-St
reet
Ser
vici
ng a
nd P
arki
ng
T28
THE
CO
UN
CIL
WIL
L EN
SUR
E, W
HER
EVER
PR
AC
TIC
AB
LE, T
HE
PRO
VISI
ON
AN
D
RET
ENTI
ON
OF
AD
EQU
ATE
OFF
-STR
EET
SER
VIC
ING
, LO
AD
ING
AN
D P
AR
KIN
G
FAC
ILIT
IES
IN A
LL C
OM
MER
CIA
L A
ND
MIX
ED
USE
DEV
ELO
PMEN
TS A
ND
EXT
ENSI
ON
S A
ND
IN
APP
RO
PRIA
TE C
ASE
S W
ILL
SEEK
TO
SE
CU
RE
REA
R S
ERVI
CIN
G T
O A
DJA
CEN
T PR
OPE
RTI
ES V
IA S
UC
H F
AC
ILIT
IES.
AN
Y PR
OPO
SALS
TH
AT
INVO
LVE
BU
ILD
ING
ON
n/
a
To b
e re
plac
ed in
th
e de
velo
pmen
t co
ntro
l pol
icy
DP
D
i) P
art 1
pol
icie
s pr
ovid
e th
e ce
ntra
l stra
tegy
, ii)
Thi
s po
licy
supp
orts
the
Com
mun
ity P
lan
obje
ctiv
e to
hav
e ef
ficie
nt tr
ansp
ort i
nfra
stru
ctur
e.
iii) T
his
polic
y su
ppor
ts L
ondo
n P
lan
polic
y 3C
.24
(Fre
ight
st
rate
gy) i
n en
surin
g ‘d
evel
opm
ents
incl
ude
appr
opria
te
serv
icin
g fa
cilit
ies…
’.
iv) N
/A
v) N
/A
vi) T
his
polic
y do
es n
ot re
peat
hig
her l
evel
pol
icy.
The
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
SUC
H A
REA
S W
ILL
BE
UN
AC
CEP
TAB
LE IF
TH
EY C
AN
NO
T B
E SA
TISF
AC
TOR
ILY
REP
LAC
ED A
S PA
RT
OF
THE
DEV
ELO
PMEN
T.
prov
isio
n/re
tent
ion
of o
ff-st
reet
load
ing
and
serv
icin
g is
ver
y im
porta
nt fo
r red
ucin
g pa
rkin
g/tra
ffic
flow
pro
blem
s on
the
high
way
– w
hich
is re
quire
d to
be
deal
t with
as
part
of th
e Tr
affic
M
anag
emen
t Act
, 200
4.
Use
of S
hopp
ing
Fore
cour
ts
T29
THE
CO
UN
CIL
, IN
APP
RO
PRIA
TE C
ASE
S A
ND
SU
BJE
CT
TO E
NVI
RO
NM
ENTA
L C
ON
SID
ERA
TIO
NS,
WIL
L EN
CO
UR
AG
E TH
E O
WN
ERS
OF
WID
E FO
REC
OU
RTS
AT
SHO
PPIN
G P
AR
AD
ES W
HER
E EX
ISTI
NG
ON
-ST
REE
T PA
RK
ING
AFF
ECTS
TH
E FR
EE F
LOW
O
F TR
AFF
IC O
N T
HE
MA
IN R
OA
D, T
O
CO
NVE
RT
PAR
T O
F TH
E FO
REC
OU
RT
TO A
LA
Y-B
Y O
R S
ERVI
CE
RO
AD
TO
SER
VE T
HE
SHO
PPIN
G P
AR
AD
E, P
RO
VID
ED
SATI
SFA
CTO
RY
SPA
CE
FOR
PED
ESTR
IAN
S A
ND
PEO
PLE
WIT
H D
ISA
BIL
ITIE
S IS
M
AIN
TAIN
ED.
n/
a
R
epla
cem
ent
will
be
cons
ider
ed a
s pa
rt of
de
velo
pmen
t co
ntro
l pol
icy
DP
D
i) P
art 1
pol
icie
s pr
ovid
e th
e ce
ntra
l stra
tegy
, ii)
Thi
s po
licy
rela
tes
to P
riorit
y 6
(Roa
d N
etw
ork
Man
agem
ent)
in th
e Tr
ansp
ort c
hapt
er o
f the
Com
mun
ity P
lan.
iii
) The
Lon
don
Pla
n ge
nera
lly s
eeks
to d
isco
urag
e ca
r use
and
en
cour
age
impr
oved
ped
estri
an e
nviro
nmen
ts. T
his
polic
y pr
ovid
es a
mea
ns o
f rel
ocat
ing
the
spac
e w
here
par
king
take
s pl
ace
(rat
her t
han
incr
easi
ng p
arki
ng p
rovi
sion
) and
als
o m
akes
su
re th
at th
ere
is a
dequ
ate
spac
e fo
r ped
estri
ans.
iv
) N/A
v)
N/A
. vi
) Thi
s po
licy
is n
eces
sary
to e
nabl
e th
e pr
ovis
ion
of la
y-by
es
and
serv
ice
road
s w
here
ther
e ar
e re
al tr
affic
flow
issu
es a
roun
d sh
oppi
ng p
arad
es.
Whe
re th
ese
issu
es e
xist
they
can
hav
e se
rious
kno
ck-o
n co
nseq
uenc
es fo
r the
saf
ety
and
runn
ing
of
the
rest
of t
he tr
ansp
ort s
yste
m. T
his
wou
ld b
e in
acc
orda
nce
with
the
Traf
fic M
anag
emen
t Act
200
4 w
hich
requ
ires
loca
l au
thor
ities
to k
eep
traffi
c flo
win
g. T
he p
olic
y al
so e
nsur
es th
at
such
dev
elop
men
t wou
ld n
ot b
e at
the
expe
nse
of p
edes
trian
s an
d pe
ople
with
dis
abili
ties,
als
o in
acc
orda
nce
with
the
Traf
fic
Man
agem
ent A
ct.
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
Sh
oppi
ng P
rovi
sion
in K
ings
ton
Tow
n C
entr
e K
TC1
THE
CO
UN
CIL
WIL
L SE
EK T
O P
RO
TEC
T A
ND
C
ON
SOLI
DA
TE K
ING
STO
N T
OW
N C
ENTR
E’S
RET
AIL
TR
AD
ING
PO
SITI
ON
AN
D E
NH
AN
CE
ITS
REG
ION
AL
SHO
PPIN
G R
OLE
BY
ENC
OU
RA
GIN
G IM
PRO
VEM
ENTS
IN T
HE
QU
ALI
TY O
F SH
OPP
ING
, TH
E SH
OPP
ING
EN
VIR
ON
MEN
T, A
ND
TH
E PR
OVI
SIO
N O
F A
W
IDE
RA
NG
E O
F R
ETA
IL F
AC
ILIT
IES
WIT
HIN
TH
E TO
WN
CEN
TRE.
W
ill b
e re
plac
ed b
y th
e K
ings
ton
tow
n ce
ntre
AA
P
i) Th
e ce
ntra
l stra
tegy
is p
rovi
ded
by th
e P
art 1
pol
icie
s.
ii) H
as re
gard
to th
e Lo
cal E
cono
my
and
Hou
sing
Obj
ectiv
e of
th
e C
omm
unity
Stra
tegy
. iii
) In
conf
orm
ity w
ith L
ondo
n P
lan
Pol
icie
s lis
ted:
2A
.5 T
own
Cen
tres;
3D
.1 S
uppo
rting
Tow
n C
entre
s bu
llet 2
; 3D
.3 M
aint
aini
ng a
nd Im
prov
ing
Ret
ail F
acili
ties;
and
5F
.1 T
he S
trate
gic
Prio
ritie
s fo
r Sou
th L
ondo
n, b
ulle
t 4.
iv) N
/A
v) It
is a
n ef
fect
ive
polic
y fo
r an
area
of s
igni
fican
t cha
nge
in th
e us
e or
dev
elop
men
t of l
and
and
cons
erva
tion
of th
e ar
ea.
vi) T
his
is th
e ov
eral
l pol
icy
for r
etai
l in
the
tow
n ce
ntre
, with
out
whi
ch th
e U
DP
wou
ld n
ot b
e cl
ear o
n w
hat i
t is
seek
ing
to
achi
eve
rega
rdin
g re
tail
in th
is m
etro
polit
an to
wn
cent
re.
Gov
ernm
ent p
olic
y pr
iorit
ies:
Th
is p
olic
y is
con
sist
ent w
ith th
e go
vern
men
t’s o
bjec
tive
to
supp
ort e
cono
mic
dev
elop
men
t and
rege
nera
tion
incl
udin
g po
licie
s fo
r ret
ailin
g an
d to
wn
cent
res.
Smal
l Sho
p U
nits
K
TC3
W
ill b
e re
plac
ed b
y th
e K
ings
ton
i) Th
e ce
ntra
l stra
tegy
is p
rovi
ded
by th
e P
art 1
pol
icie
s.
ii) H
as re
gard
to th
e Lo
cal E
cono
my
and
Hou
sing
Obj
ectiv
e of
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
SMA
LL S
HO
P U
NIT
S W
ILL
BE
PREF
ERR
ED IN
TH
E M
AR
KET
PLA
CE,
APP
LE M
AR
KET
, C
HU
RC
H S
TREE
T, C
RO
WN
AR
CA
DE,
CR
OW
N
PASS
AG
E, T
HE
GR
IFFI
N, A
DA
MS
CO
UR
T, H
IGH
ST
REE
T, C
AST
LE S
TREE
T, F
IFE
RO
AD
AN
D
THE
‘OTH
ER S
HO
PPIN
G P
AR
AD
ES’,
PAR
TIC
ULA
RLY
WH
ERE
SMA
LL S
HO
P U
NIT
S FO
RM
PA
RT
OF
THE
CH
AR
AC
TER
OF
THE
CO
NSE
RVA
TIO
N A
REA
.
tow
n ce
ntre
AA
P th
e C
omm
unity
Stra
tegy
. iii
) In
conf
orm
ity w
ith L
ondo
n P
lan
Pol
icie
s lis
ted:
2A
.5 T
own
Cen
tres
bulle
t 4;
3D.1
Sup
porti
ng T
own
Cen
tres
bulle
t 3; a
nd
3D.3
Mai
ntai
ning
and
Impr
ovin
g R
etai
l Fac
ilitie
s bu
llet 1
. iv
) N/A
v)
It is
an
effe
ctiv
e po
licy
for t
he c
onse
rvat
ion
of th
e ar
ea.
vi) T
his
polic
y do
es n
ot re
peat
nat
iona
l pol
icy
and
addr
esse
d a
parti
cula
rly lo
cal i
ssue
rela
ted
to th
e ch
arac
ter o
f cer
tain
par
ts o
f th
e to
wn
cent
re.
In th
is s
ense
it a
pplie
s P
PS
6 pa
ra 2
.3 2
nd b
ulle
t “m
anag
ing
the
role
and
func
tion
of e
xist
ing
cent
res
by fo
r ex
ampl
e pr
omot
ing
and
deve
lopi
ng a
spe
cial
ist o
r new
role
and
en
cour
agin
g sp
ecifi
c ty
pes
of u
ses
in s
ome
cent
res.
” M
arke
ts
KTC
4 TH
E C
OU
NC
IL W
ILL
SEEK
TO
SA
FEG
UA
RD
TH
E R
OLE
AN
D E
SSEN
TIA
L C
HA
RA
CTE
RIS
TIC
S O
F TH
E A
NC
IEN
T A
ND
M
ON
DA
Y M
AR
KET
S W
HIC
H A
RE
A C
ENTR
AL
FEA
TUR
E O
F K
ING
STO
N’S
SH
OPP
ING
A
TTR
AC
TIO
N A
ND
AR
E IM
POR
TAN
T TO
TH
E C
HA
RA
CTE
R O
F TH
E O
LD T
OW
N
CO
NSE
RVA
TIO
N A
REA
.
W
ill b
e re
plac
ed b
y th
e K
ings
ton
tow
n ce
ntre
AA
P
i) Th
e ce
ntra
l stra
tegy
is p
rovi
ded
by th
e P
art 1
pol
icie
s.
ii) H
as re
gard
to th
e Lo
cal E
cono
my
and
Hou
sing
Obj
ectiv
e of
th
e C
omm
unity
Stra
tegy
. iii
) In
conf
orm
ity w
ith L
ondo
n P
lan
Pol
icie
s lis
ted:
3D
.1 S
uppo
rting
Tow
n C
entre
s;
3D.2
Tow
n C
entre
Dev
elop
men
t; an
d 3D
.3 M
aint
aini
ng a
nd Im
prov
ing
Ret
ail F
acilit
ies.
iv
) N/A
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
v) It
is a
n ef
fect
ive
polic
y fo
r the
con
serv
atio
n of
the
area
. vi
) Thi
s do
es n
ot re
peat
nat
iona
l pol
icy
and
addr
esse
s a
parti
cula
r iss
ue a
nd c
hara
cter
istic
of K
ings
ton
tow
n ce
ntre
. Lo
catio
n of
Art
s an
d C
raft
Wor
ksho
ps
KTC
7 IN
APP
RO
PRIA
TE L
OC
ATI
ON
S SU
CH
AS
THE
RIV
ERSI
DE
AR
EA, T
HE
CO
UN
CIL
WIL
L EN
CO
UR
AG
E TH
E IN
CLU
SIO
N O
F A
RTS
AN
D
CR
AFT
WO
RK
SHO
PS W
ITH
RET
AIL
SA
LES
IN
MIX
ED D
EVEL
OPM
ENT
SCH
EMES
.
Th
e is
sue
of
arts
and
cra
fts
wor
ksho
ps
will
be
cons
ider
ed in
th
e co
re
stra
tegy
.
i) Th
e ce
ntra
l stra
tegy
is p
rovi
ded
by th
e P
art 1
pol
icie
s.
ii) H
as re
gard
to th
e Lo
cal E
cono
my
and
Hou
sing
Obj
ectiv
e of
th
e C
omm
unity
Stra
tegy
. iii)
In c
onfo
rmity
with
Lon
don
Pla
n P
olic
ies:
3D
.4 D
evel
opm
ent
and
Pro
mot
ion
of A
rts a
nd C
ultu
re.
3B.9
Cre
ativ
e In
dust
ries.
iv
) N/A
v)
The
tow
n ce
ntre
is a
n ar
ea o
f cha
nge
and
cons
erva
tion
Iv) I
t is
a co
unci
l obj
ectiv
e to
pro
mot
e ar
ts a
nd c
rafts
es
tabl
ishm
ents
par
ticul
arly
in th
e riv
ersi
de a
rea
whe
re th
is w
ould
en
hanc
e vi
talit
y an
d be
an
appr
opria
te ty
pe o
f dev
elop
men
t.
This
pol
icy
is n
eces
sary
to e
xpla
in th
e si
tuat
ions
whe
re a
rts a
nd
craf
ts w
orks
hops
will
be
soug
ht.
The
re is
a n
eed
for a
fford
able
w
orks
pace
for t
he C
reat
ive
Indu
strie
s an
d to
enc
oura
ge c
lust
ers
of s
uch
activ
ity.
O
pen
Spac
e in
Kin
gsto
n To
wn
Cen
tre
KTC
11
Will
be
repl
aced
by
the
Kin
gsto
n
i) C
entra
l stra
tegy
pro
vide
d by
Par
t 1 p
olic
ies.
ii)
Con
tribu
tes
to C
omm
unity
Stra
tegy
env
ironm
ent o
bjec
tive
to
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
THE
CO
UN
CIL
WIL
L R
ESIS
T TH
E LO
SS O
F O
PEN
SPA
CE
IN T
HE
TOW
N C
ENTR
E, A
ND
W
ILL,
WH
ERE
APP
RO
PRIA
TE, S
EEK
ITS
ENH
AN
CEM
ENT.
TH
E C
OU
NC
IL W
ILL
SEEK
TH
E PR
OVI
SIO
N O
F A
DD
ITIO
NA
L O
PEN
SPA
CE
IN S
UIT
AB
LE
LOC
ATI
ON
S A
ND
REQ
UIR
E SU
CH
SPA
CE
TO
BE
PRO
VID
ED O
N S
PEC
IFIE
D P
RO
POSA
L SI
TES.
tow
n ce
ntre
AA
P ha
ve “c
lean
and
saf
e st
reet
s, p
arks
and
com
mun
al s
pace
s in
K
ings
ton”
. iii)
Gen
eral
con
form
ity w
ith L
ondo
n P
lan
polic
y 4B
.4 E
nhan
cing
th
e qu
ality
of t
he p
ublic
real
m
iv) N
/A
v) T
he to
wn
cent
re is
an
area
sub
ject
to b
oth
chan
ge a
nd
cons
erva
tion,
and
the
prot
ectio
n an
d pr
ovis
ion
of g
ood
qual
ity
open
spa
ce is
a v
ital e
lem
ent o
f the
tow
n’s
desi
gn a
nd la
yout
. vi
) Thi
s po
licy
is n
eces
sary
bec
ause
it h
elps
cla
rify
the
appr
oach
to
ope
n sp
ace
in th
e to
wn
cent
re b
oth
in te
rms
of p
rote
ctin
g sp
aces
and
requ
iring
new
spa
ces
with
new
dev
elop
men
t.
Prov
isio
n of
Hot
el a
nd O
ther
Vis
itor F
acili
ties
KTC
12
THE
CO
UN
CIL
WIL
L SE
EK T
HE
PRO
VISI
ON
OF
IMPR
OVE
D F
AC
ILIT
IES
FOR
VIS
ITO
RS,
IN
PAR
TIC
ULA
R:
(A)
TRA
NSP
OR
T FA
CIL
ITIE
S IN
CLU
DIN
G
ATT
RA
CTI
VE R
AIL
AN
D B
US
STA
TIO
NS,
SU
ITA
BLE
PA
RK
ING
PR
OVI
SIO
N, I
NC
LUD
ING
FO
R C
OA
CH
ES, A
ND
PA
SSEN
GER
BO
AT
MO
OR
ING
S;
(B)
CLE
AR
SIG
NIN
G;
(C)
HO
TEL
PRO
VISI
ON
; (D
) IM
PRO
VED
HER
ITA
GE
EXH
IBIT
ION
Will
be
repl
aced
by
the
Kin
gsto
n to
wn
cent
re
AAP
i) C
entra
l stra
tegy
is p
rovi
ded
by P
art 1
pol
icie
s
ii) H
as re
gard
to th
e C
omm
unity
Stra
tegy
Vis
ion
for “
A fo
cus
for
tour
ism
and
recr
eatio
n” a
nd th
e Lo
cal E
cono
my
and
Hou
sing
O
bjec
tive,
spe
cific
ally
rega
rdin
g ‘K
ings
ton
Tow
n C
entre
’s ro
le
and
perfo
rman
ce’.
iii) I
n co
nfor
mity
with
Lon
don
Pla
n P
olic
ies
liste
d:
3D.4
Dev
elop
men
t and
Pro
mot
ion
of A
rts a
nd C
ultu
re;
3D.6
Vis
itors
Acc
omm
odat
ion
and
faci
litie
s; a
nd
3B.1
0 To
uris
m In
dust
ry.
iv) N
/A
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
SPA
CES
.
v) T
he to
wn
cent
re is
an
area
of c
hang
e an
d th
is p
olic
y hi
ghlig
hts
som
e ke
y is
sues
to b
e ad
dres
sed
as p
art o
f tha
t ch
ange
. vi
) It d
oes
not r
epea
t nat
iona
l pol
icy
and
is n
eces
sary
to a
ddre
ss
the
loca
l circ
umst
ance
s of
the
tow
n ce
ntre
. G
over
nmen
t pol
icy
prio
ritie
s:
This
pol
icy
is c
onsi
sten
t with
the
gove
rnm
ent’s
obj
ectiv
e to
su
ppor
t eco
nom
ic d
evel
opm
ent a
nd re
gene
ratio
n in
clud
ing
polic
ies
for r
etai
ling
and
tow
n ce
ntre
s.
D
esig
n St
anda
rds
KTC
13
THE
CO
UN
CIL
WIL
L R
EQU
IRE
ALL
NEW
D
EVEL
OPM
ENT
TO M
EET
A H
IGH
STA
ND
AR
D
OF
DES
IGN
AN
D R
ESPE
CT
KIN
GST
ON
TO
WN
C
ENTR
E’S
IMPO
RTA
NC
E A
S A
REG
ION
AL
CEN
TRE
AN
D T
OU
RIS
T A
TTR
AC
TIO
N W
HIL
ST
SAFE
GU
AR
DIN
G IT
S H
UM
AN
SC
ALE
, H
ISTO
RIC
CH
AR
AC
TER
AN
D U
NIQ
UE
QU
ALI
TIES
. N
EW D
EVEL
OPM
ENT
SHO
ULD
PR
OVI
DE
CO
HES
ION
WIT
HIN
TH
E EX
ISTI
NG
B
UIL
T EN
VIR
ON
MEN
T A
ND
INTE
RES
T IN
ITS
DET
AIL
ING
TH
RO
UG
H C
AR
EFU
L B
UT
IMA
GIN
ATI
VE U
SE O
F A
RC
HIT
ECTU
RA
L FE
ATU
RES
, RO
OFL
INES
, MA
TER
IALS
AN
D
OR
NA
MEN
TATI
ON
(Cro
ss re
fere
nce
Polic
ies
W
ill b
e re
plac
ed b
y th
e K
ings
ton
tow
n ce
ntre
AA
P
i) U
DP
Pol
icy
STR
6 m
akes
up
the
clea
r cen
tral s
trate
gy.
ii) S
uppo
rts c
omm
unity
pla
n ob
ject
ive
to s
uppo
rt an
d en
hanc
e th
e to
wn
cent
re’s
role
as
a m
etro
polit
an c
entre
iii
) In
conf
orm
ity w
ith L
ondo
n P
lan
Pol
icie
s lis
ted:
4B
.1 D
esig
n P
rinci
ples
for a
com
pact
city
; and
3D
.2 T
own
Cen
tre D
evel
opm
ent b
ulle
t 2.
iv) N
/A
v) T
he to
wn
cent
re is
faci
ng c
hang
e an
d de
sign
pol
icie
s th
at
addr
ess
the
spec
ific
circ
umst
ance
s of
the
tow
n ce
ntre
are
co
nsid
ered
nec
essa
ry.
vi) P
PS
1 an
d P
PS
6 re
cogn
ise
the
impo
rtanc
e of
des
ign.
It i
s co
nsid
ered
that
the
tow
n ce
ntre
war
rant
s de
taile
d de
sign
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
BE1
1 an
d B
E12)
.
polic
ies
to h
elp
impl
emen
t the
stra
tegi
c to
wns
cape
stra
tegy
po
licy.
Pede
stria
n N
etw
ork
KTC
24
THE
CO
UN
CIL
WIL
L SE
EK T
HE
PRO
VISI
ON
OF
A C
OM
PREH
ENSI
VE N
ETW
OR
K O
F PE
DES
TRIA
N R
OU
TES
OF
HIG
H S
TAN
DA
RD
TO
LIN
K A
LL A
REA
S O
F M
AIN
PED
ESTR
IAN
A
CTI
VITY
AN
D W
HIC
H W
ILL
LIN
K A
CR
OSS
TH
E R
ELIE
F R
OA
D T
O C
ON
NEC
T W
ITH
A F
UR
THER
N
ETW
OR
K O
F R
OU
TES
INTO
TH
E SU
RR
OU
ND
ING
BU
SIN
ESS,
LEI
SUR
E A
ND
R
ESID
ENTI
AL
AR
EAS.
TH
E ES
TAB
LISH
MEN
T O
F TH
IS N
ETW
OR
K O
F PE
DES
TRIA
N R
OU
TES
WIL
L IN
CLU
DE
THE
FOLL
OW
ING
:- (I)
TH
E PR
OVI
SIO
N F
OR
PED
ESTR
IAN
S TO
CR
OSS
MA
JOR
TR
AFF
IC R
OU
TES
WH
EREV
ER P
OSS
IBLE
ON
NA
TUR
AL
DES
IRE
LIN
ES, A
ND
AT
GR
OU
ND
LEV
EL, B
Y PR
OVI
SIO
N O
F ZE
BR
A/P
ELIC
AN
/TR
AFF
IC
LIG
HT
CO
NTR
OLL
ED F
AC
ILIT
IES;
(II
) TH
E PR
OVI
SIO
N O
F N
EW O
R
IMPR
OVE
D P
EDES
TRIA
N R
OU
TES
THR
OU
GH
A
PPR
OPR
IATE
RED
EVEL
OPM
ENT
SITE
S.
Rep
lace
with
K
ings
ton
tow
n ce
ntre
AAP
i) P
art 1
pol
icie
s pr
ovid
e th
e ce
ntra
l stra
tegy
. ii)
Has
rega
rd to
the
Loca
l Eco
nom
y an
d H
ousi
ng O
bjec
tive
of
the
Com
mun
ity S
trate
gy a
nd th
e Tr
ansp
ort O
bjec
tive,
mor
e sp
ecifi
cally
‘wal
king
faci
litie
s an
d pr
omot
ion’
. iii
) In
conf
orm
ity w
ith L
ondo
n P
lan
Pol
icie
s lis
ted:
2A
.5 T
own
Cen
tre b
ulle
t 3;
3C.2
0 Im
prov
ing
Con
ditio
ns fo
r wal
king
; and
3D
.1 S
uppo
rting
Tow
n C
entre
s bu
llet 2
. iv
) N/A
v)
the
tow
n ce
ntre
is a
n ar
ea fo
r sig
nific
ant c
hang
e an
d co
nser
vatio
n vi
) The
pol
icy
does
not
repe
at n
atio
nal p
olic
y an
d ad
dres
ses
parti
cula
r circ
umst
ance
s of
the
relie
f roa
d. I
t enc
oura
ges
mod
al
shift
to m
ore
sust
aina
ble
mea
ns o
f tra
nspo
rt an
d ad
ds d
etai
l to
STR
13 s
usta
inab
le tr
ansp
ort s
trate
gy.
Serv
icin
g Fa
cilit
ies
in th
e Pe
dest
rian
Prio
rity
Are
a K
TC25
To
be
repl
aced
in
the
Kin
gsto
n
i) Th
e ce
ntra
l stra
tegy
is p
rovi
ded
by th
e P
art 1
pol
icie
s ii)
Has
rega
rd to
the
Loca
l Eco
nom
y an
d H
ousi
ng O
bjec
tive
of
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
THE
CO
UN
CIL
WIL
L SE
EK IM
PRO
VED
SE
RVI
CIN
G F
AC
ILIT
IES,
PA
RTI
CU
LAR
LY R
EAR
SE
RVI
CIN
G, F
OR
DEV
ELO
PMEN
TS W
ITH
IN T
HE
PED
ESTR
IAN
PR
IOR
ITY
AR
EA T
O F
AC
ILIT
ATE
PE
DES
TRIA
NIS
ATI
ON
, IM
PRO
VE R
OA
D
SAFE
TY A
ND
EN
HA
NC
E TH
E EN
VIR
ON
MEN
T.
tow
n ce
ntre
AA
P th
e C
omm
unity
Stra
tegy
, spe
cific
ally
con
cern
ing
‘app
ropr
iate
ph
ysic
al in
frast
ruct
ure’
. iii
) In
conf
orm
ity w
ith L
ondo
n P
lan
Pol
icie
s lis
ted:
3C
.17
Allo
catio
n of
Stre
et S
pace
bul
let 1
; 3C
.22
Par
king
Stra
tegy
bul
let 5
; and
3C
.24
Frei
ght S
trate
gy b
ulle
ts 4
and
5.
iv) N
/A
v) T
he to
wn
cent
re is
an
area
of c
hang
e/co
nser
vatio
n vi
) It d
oes
not r
epea
t nat
iona
l pol
icy
and
is n
eces
sary
to e
nsur
e ad
equa
te s
ervi
cing
is p
rovi
ded
conc
urre
nt w
ith th
e pe
dest
riani
satio
n.
N
ew R
etai
l Flo
orsp
ace
DC
1 TH
E C
OU
NC
IL W
ILL
ENC
OU
RA
GE
THE
CO
NSO
LID
ATI
ON
AN
D E
NH
AN
CEM
ENT
OF
NEW
MA
LDEN
, SU
RB
ITO
N A
ND
TO
LWO
RTH
AS
DIS
TRIC
T SH
OPP
ING
CEN
TRES
BY
PER
MIT
TIN
G G
RO
WTH
IN R
ETA
IL
FLO
OR
SPA
CE
WIT
HIN
RET
AIL
AR
EAS,
IN
DIC
ATE
D O
N T
HE
DIS
TRIC
T C
ENTR
E IN
SET
MA
PS A
ND
BY
PRO
TEC
TIN
G L
OC
AL
CH
AR
AC
TER
AN
D A
MEN
ITY.
N
/A
To
be
repl
aced
in
the
Cor
e st
rate
gy
and/
or
deve
lopm
ent
cont
rol
polic
ies
DP
D
i) U
DP
Pol
icy
STR
5 s
hopp
ing
and
tow
n ce
ntre
s pr
ovid
es th
e cl
ear c
entra
l stra
tegy
. ii)
Sup
ports
the
com
mun
ity p
lan
obje
ctiv
e to
ens
ure
the
boro
ugh’
s di
stric
t and
loca
l cen
tres
play
to th
eir s
treng
ths,
co
mpl
emen
t eac
h ot
her a
nd m
axim
ise
pote
ntia
l. iii
) In
conf
orm
ity w
ith L
ondo
n P
lan
Pol
icie
s lis
ted:
3D
.1 S
uppo
rting
Tow
n C
entre
s bu
llet p
oint
s 1
and
3; a
nd
3D.3
Mai
ntai
ning
and
Impr
ovin
g R
etai
l Fac
ilitie
s bu
llet p
oint
3.
iv) N
/A
v) N
/A
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
vi) T
his
polic
y is
nec
essa
ry to
pro
mot
e vi
talit
y an
d vi
abilit
y in
the
dist
rict c
entre
s in
acc
orda
nce
with
PP
S6
and
links
to re
tail
area
s sh
own
on th
e pr
opos
als
map
.
Are
as o
f Mix
ed U
se
DC
4 W
ITH
IN T
HE
AR
EAS
OF
MIX
ED U
SE, A
S D
EFIN
ED O
N T
HE
SUR
BIT
ON
AN
D T
OLW
OR
TH
INSE
T M
APS
, PR
OPO
SALS
FO
R R
ETA
IL
(CLA
SS A
1), F
INA
NC
IAL
AN
D P
RO
FESS
ION
AL
SER
VIC
ES (C
LASS
A2)
, CO
MM
UN
ITY
AN
D
LEIS
UR
E U
SE A
ND
B1
BU
SIN
ESS
USE
WIL
L N
OR
MA
LLY
BE
AC
CEP
TAB
LE P
RO
VID
ED
THA
T TH
EY C
OM
PLY
WIT
H O
THER
REL
EVA
NT
POLI
CIE
S IN
TH
E PL
AN
.
N
/A
To
be
repl
aced
in
the
deve
lopm
ent
cont
rol
polic
ies
DP
D
i) P
art 1
pol
icie
s pr
ovid
e th
e ce
ntra
l stra
tegy
, in
parti
cula
r po
licie
s S
TR4
Loca
l Eco
nom
y an
d S
TR5
Sho
ppin
g an
d To
wn
Cen
tres
ii) S
uppo
rts th
e co
mm
unity
pla
n ob
ject
ive
to e
nsur
e th
e bo
roug
h’s
dist
rict a
nd lo
cal c
entre
s pl
ay to
thei
r stre
ngth
s,
com
plem
ent e
ach
othe
r and
max
imis
e po
tent
ial.
iii) In
con
form
ity w
ith L
ondo
n P
lan
Pol
icie
s:
2A.5
Tow
n C
entre
bul
let 4
; 3D
.1 S
uppo
rting
Tow
n C
entre
s bu
llet 1
; and
3D
.3 M
aint
aini
ng a
nd Im
prov
ing
Ret
ail F
acilit
ies
bulle
t poi
nt 3
. iv
) N/A
v)
N/A
vi
) The
pol
icy
does
not
repe
at n
atio
nal p
olic
y –
it se
ts o
ut in
sp
atia
l ter
ms
the
visi
on fo
r cer
tain
are
as o
f Sur
bito
n an
d To
lwor
th c
entre
s w
here
mix
ed u
se d
evel
opm
ent,
as o
ppos
ed to
so
lely
reta
il, w
ould
be
appr
opria
te.
Rea
r Ser
vice
Roa
ds
NM
2 TH
E C
OU
NC
IL W
ILL
CO
NTI
NU
E TO
SA
FEG
UA
RD
TH
E LI
NE
OF
THE
REA
R
n/
a
To b
e re
plac
ed in
th
e de
velo
pmen
t co
ntro
l
i) P
art 1
pol
icie
s pr
ovid
e th
e ce
ntra
l stra
tegy
, in
parti
cula
r po
licie
s S
TR4
Loca
l Eco
nom
y an
d S
TR5
Sho
ppin
g an
d To
wn
Cen
tres.
Als
o th
e Lo
cal I
mpl
emen
tatio
n P
lan
Pol
icy
4: th
e co
unci
l will
ens
ure
that
par
king
and
load
ing
arra
ngem
ents
mee
t th
e re
ason
able
nee
ds o
f bus
ines
s.
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
SER
VIC
E R
OA
D S
HO
WN
ON
TH
E IN
SET
MA
P.
po
licie
s D
PD
ii)
Has
rega
rd to
the
Loca
l Eco
nom
y an
d H
ousi
ng O
bjec
tive
of
the
Com
mun
ity S
trate
gy, s
peci
fical
ly c
once
rnin
g ‘a
ppro
pria
te
phys
ical
infra
stru
ctur
e’.
iii) I
n co
nfor
mity
with
Lon
don
Pla
n P
olic
ies
liste
d:
3C.1
7 A
lloca
tion
of S
treet
Spa
ce b
ulle
t 1;
3C.2
2 P
arki
ng S
trate
gy b
ulle
t 5; a
nd
3C.2
4 Fr
eigh
t Stra
tegy
bul
lets
4 a
nd 5
. iv
) N/A
v)
N/A
vi
) The
pol
icy
is c
onsi
sten
t with
PP
G 1
3 pa
ragr
aph
6 bu
llet 1
1;
and
Frei
ght P
arag
raph
46
in re
spec
t of d
eliv
ery
faci
litie
s, a
nd is
a
spec
ifica
lly lo
cal p
olic
y to
add
ress
circ
umst
ance
s in
New
M
alde
n.
D
esig
n an
d Sc
ale
of N
ew D
evel
opm
ent
NM
3 N
EW D
EVEL
OPM
ENT
AN
D R
EDEV
ELO
PMEN
T PR
OPO
SALS
SH
OU
LD R
ESPE
CT
THE
CH
AR
AC
TER
OF
THE
CEN
TRE,
AN
D
NO
RM
ALL
Y IN
VOLV
E:
(A)
THE
RES
TRIC
TIO
N O
F N
EW
DEV
ELO
PMEN
T TO
A P
LOT
RA
TIO
OF
1.5:
1;
(B)
A M
AXI
MU
M H
EIG
HT
OF
THR
EE
STO
REY
S A
LON
G M
AIN
RO
AD
FR
ON
TAG
ES
n/
a
n/a
To
be
repl
aced
in
the
core
st
rate
gy
and/
or
deve
lopm
ent
cont
rol
polic
ies
DP
D
i) U
DP
Pol
icy
STR
6 p
rovi
des
the
clea
r cen
tral s
trate
gy.
ii) T
he c
omm
unity
pla
n sa
ys n
othi
ng s
peci
fic a
bout
des
ign
of th
e bu
ilt e
nviro
nmen
t iii
) In
conf
orm
ity w
ith L
ondo
n P
lan
Pol
icie
s lis
ted:
4B
.1 D
esig
n P
rinci
ples
for a
com
pact
city
; and
3D
.2 T
own
Cen
tre D
evel
opm
ent b
ulle
t 2.
iv) N
/A
v) N
/A
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
AN
D T
WO
STO
REY
S A
LON
G A
NY
RES
IDEN
TIA
L R
OA
DS.
TH
E O
NLY
EXC
EPTI
ON
TO
TH
IS W
ILL
BE
IN T
HE
EVEN
T O
F TH
E R
EDEV
ELO
PMEN
T O
F A
PEX
OR
C I
TOW
ERS
WH
ERE
A M
AXI
MU
M B
UIL
DIN
G H
EIG
HT
OF
FIVE
STO
REY
S W
ILL
BE
PER
MIT
TED
; (C
) A
HIG
H Q
UA
LITY
OF
DES
IGN
AN
D
SUIT
AB
LE F
AC
ING
MA
TER
IALS
, NO
RM
ALL
Y B
RIC
K O
R P
AIN
TED
REN
DER
; AN
D
(D)
THE
SETT
ING
BA
CK
OF
AN
Y N
EW
DEV
ELO
PMEN
TS F
RO
M T
HE
HIG
HW
AY
EDG
E,
PAR
TIC
ULA
RLY
IN T
HE
VIC
INIT
Y O
F 15
-49
HIG
H S
TREE
T A
ND
5-3
1 C
OO
MB
E R
OA
D, S
O
AS
TO E
NA
BLE
LA
ND
SCA
PIN
G T
O T
AK
E PL
AC
E.
vi) T
his
polic
y is
nec
essa
ry to
pro
vide
des
ign
guid
ance
ad
dres
sing
the
spec
ific
circ
umst
ance
s of
New
Mal
den
tow
n ce
ntre
.
Des
ign
and
Scal
e of
New
Dev
elop
men
t SU
R3
NEW
DEV
ELO
PMEN
T A
ND
RED
EVEL
OPM
ENT
PRO
POSA
LS S
HO
ULD
PR
ESER
VE O
R
ENH
AN
CE
THE
PAR
TIC
ULA
R C
HA
RA
CTE
R O
R
APP
EAR
AN
CE
OF
THE
TOW
N C
ENTR
E, A
ND
W
ILL
NO
RM
ALL
Y IN
VOLV
E:-
(A)
A M
AXI
MU
M H
EIG
HT
OF
3 ST
OR
EYS;
(B
) A
PLO
T R
ATI
O N
OT
EXC
EED
ING
1.5
:1;
(C)
RES
PEC
T FO
R T
HE
EXIS
TIN
G
PATT
ERN
OF
NA
RR
OW
PR
OPE
RTY
FR
ON
TAG
ES;
(D)
HIG
H Q
UA
LITY
OF
DES
IGN
AN
D
n/
a
n/a
To
be
repl
aced
in
the
core
st
rate
gy
and/
or
deve
lopm
ent
cont
rol
polic
ies
DP
D
i) U
DP
Pol
icy
STR
6 p
rovi
des
the
cent
ral s
trate
gy.
ii) T
he c
omm
unity
pla
n sa
ys n
othi
ng s
peci
fic a
bout
des
ign
of th
e bu
ilt e
nviro
nmen
t iii)
In c
onfo
rmity
with
Lon
don
Pla
n P
olic
ies:
4B
.1 D
esig
n P
rinci
ples
for a
com
pact
city
; and
3D
.2 T
own
Cen
tre D
evel
opm
ent b
ulle
t 2.
iv) N
/A
v) N
/A
vi) T
his
polic
y is
nec
essa
ry to
pro
vide
des
ign
guid
ance
ad
dres
sing
the
spec
ific
circ
umst
ance
s of
Sur
bito
n to
wn
cent
re.
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
SUIT
AB
LE F
AC
ING
MA
TER
IALS
, NO
RM
ALL
Y B
RIC
K O
R P
AIN
TED
REN
DER
; (E
) TH
E R
ETEN
TIO
N O
F EX
ISTI
NG
VI
CTO
RIA
N S
HO
PFR
ON
TS A
ND
RES
PEC
T FO
R
AN
Y A
DJA
CEN
T SH
OPF
RO
NTS
OR
A
RC
HIT
ECTU
RA
L FE
ATU
RES
; (F
) TH
E IN
CO
RPO
RA
TIO
N O
F FE
ATU
RES
A
ND
DES
IGN
S TH
AT
CO
MPL
EMEN
T TH
E IM
PRO
VEM
ENTS
RES
ULT
ING
FR
OM
AR
EA
REV
ITA
LISA
TIO
N, A
ND
PR
ESER
VE O
R
ENH
AN
CE
THE
CH
AR
AC
TER
OR
A
PPEA
RA
NC
E O
F TH
E C
ON
SER
VATI
ON
A
REA
S A
ND
TH
E SE
TTIN
G O
F LI
STED
B
UIL
DIN
GS
AN
D B
UIL
DIN
GS
OF
TOW
NSC
APE
M
ERIT
. R
ear S
ervi
ce R
oads
SU
R4
THE
CO
UN
CIL
WIL
L C
ON
TIN
UE
TO
SAFE
GU
AR
D T
HE
LIN
E O
F R
EAR
SER
VIC
E R
OA
DS
AS
IND
ICA
TED
ON
TH
E IN
SET
MA
P.
n/
a
To b
e re
plac
ed in
th
e de
velo
pmen
t co
ntro
l po
licie
s D
PD
i) U
DP
Pol
icy
STR
6 p
rovi
des
the
cent
ral s
trate
gy. A
lso
the
Loca
l Im
plem
enta
tion
Pla
n P
olic
y 4:
the
coun
cil w
ill en
sure
that
pa
rkin
g an
d lo
adin
g ar
rang
emen
ts m
eet t
he re
ason
able
nee
ds
of b
usin
ess.
ii)
Has
rega
rd to
the
Loca
l Eco
nom
y an
d H
ousi
ng O
bjec
tive
of
the
Com
mun
ity S
trate
gy, s
peci
fical
ly c
once
rnin
g ‘a
ppro
pria
te
phys
ical
infra
stru
ctur
e’.
iii) I
n co
nfor
mity
with
Lon
don
Pla
n P
olic
ies
liste
d:
3C.1
7 A
lloca
tion
of S
treet
Spa
ce b
ulle
t 1;
3C.2
2 P
arki
ng S
trate
gy b
ulle
t 5; a
nd
3C.2
4 Fr
eigh
t Stra
tegy
bul
lets
4 a
nd 5
.
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
iv) N
/A
v) N
/A
vi) T
he p
olic
y is
con
sist
ent w
ith P
PG
13
para
grap
h 6
bulle
t 11;
an
d Fr
eigh
t Par
agra
ph 4
6 in
resp
ect o
f del
iver
y fa
cilit
ies,
and
is
a sp
ecifi
cally
loca
l pol
icy
to a
ddre
ss c
ircum
stan
ces
in S
urbi
ton.
Des
ign
and
Scal
e of
New
Dev
elop
men
t TO
L3
NEW
DEV
ELO
PMEN
T A
ND
RED
EVEL
OPM
ENT
PRO
POSA
LS S
HO
ULD
CO
NTR
IBU
TE T
O T
HE
ENH
AN
CEM
ENT
OF
THE
CH
AR
AC
TER
OF
TOLW
OR
TH D
ISTR
ICT
CEN
TRE
AN
D
NO
RM
ALL
Y IN
VOLV
E:-
(A)
A P
LOT
RA
TIO
NO
T EX
CEE
DIN
G 1
.5:1
; (B
) A
MA
XIM
UM
HEI
GH
T O
F 3
STO
REY
S O
N M
AIN
RO
AD
FR
ON
TAG
ES A
ND
2 S
TOR
EYS
ON
AN
Y R
ESID
ENTI
AL
RO
AD
FR
ON
TAG
E. T
HE
ON
LY E
XCEP
TIO
N T
O T
HIS
WIL
L B
E IN
TH
E EV
ENT
OF
THE
RED
EVEL
OPM
ENT
OF
TOLW
OR
TH T
OW
ER, W
HER
E A
MA
XIM
UM
B
UIL
DIN
G H
EIG
HT
OF
FIVE
STO
REY
S W
ILL
BE
PER
MIT
TED
; (C
) A
DES
IGN
, AN
D U
SE O
F M
ATE
RIA
LS
WH
ICH
RES
PEC
T A
DJO
ININ
G B
UIL
DIN
GS
AN
D
MA
KE
A P
OSI
TIVE
CO
NTR
IBU
TIO
N T
O T
HE
n/
a
n/a
To
be
repl
aced
in
the
core
st
rate
gy
and/
or
deve
lopm
ent
cont
rol
polic
ies
DP
D
i) U
DP
Pol
icy
STR
6 B
uilt
Env
ironm
ent a
nd o
ther
Par
t 1 p
olic
ies
prov
ide
the
cent
ral s
trate
gy.
ii) T
he c
omm
unity
pla
n sa
ys n
othi
ng s
peci
fic a
bout
des
ign
of th
e bu
ilt e
nviro
nmen
t
iii) I
n co
nfor
mity
with
Lon
don
Pla
n P
olic
ies
liste
d:
4B.1
Des
ign
Prin
cipl
es fo
r a c
ompa
ct c
ity; a
nd
3D.2
Tow
n C
entre
Dev
elop
men
t bul
let 2
. iv
) N/A
v)
N/A
vi
) Thi
s po
licy
is n
eces
sary
to p
rovi
de d
esig
n gu
idan
ce
addr
essi
ng th
e sp
ecifi
c ci
rcum
stan
ces
of T
olw
orth
tow
n ce
ntre
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
ENH
AN
CEM
ENT
OF
INTE
RES
T IN
TH
E ST
REE
T SC
ENE;
(D
) SH
OPF
RO
NTS
AC
HIE
VIN
G
STA
ND
AR
DS
SET
OU
T IN
TH
E SU
PPLE
MEN
TAR
Y PL
AN
NIN
G G
UID
AN
CE:
‘T
OLW
OR
TH B
RO
AD
WA
Y SH
OPF
RO
NT
DES
IGN
GU
IDE’
. B
road
oaks
Rea
r Ser
vice
Roa
d TO
L4
THE
CO
UN
CIL
WIL
L SE
EK T
HE
IMPR
OVE
MEN
T O
F TH
E B
RO
AD
OA
KS
REA
R S
ERVI
CE
RO
AD
IN
CO
NJU
NC
TIO
N W
ITH
AN
Y D
EVEL
OPM
ENT
OF
AD
JAC
ENT
PRO
PER
TIES
AN
D W
ILL
AC
CO
RD
ING
LY E
NTE
R IN
TO A
GR
EEM
ENTS
W
ITH
RET
AIL
ERS
AN
D D
EVEL
OPE
RS,
AS
AN
D
WH
EN A
PPR
OPR
IATE
, IN
OR
DER
TO
AC
HIE
VE
THIS
.
n/
a
To b
e re
plac
ed in
th
e de
velo
pmen
t co
ntro
l po
licie
s D
PD
i) U
DP
Pol
icy
STR
6 p
rovi
des
the
cent
ral s
trate
gy. A
lso
the
Loca
l Im
plem
enta
tion
Pla
n P
olic
y 4:
the
coun
cil w
ill en
sure
that
pa
rkin
g an
d lo
adin
g ar
rang
emen
ts m
eet t
he re
ason
able
nee
ds
of b
usin
ess.
ii)
Has
rega
rd to
the
Loca
l Eco
nom
y an
d H
ousi
ng O
bjec
tive
of
the
Com
mun
ity S
trate
gy, s
peci
fical
ly c
once
rnin
g ‘a
ppro
pria
te
phys
ical
infra
stru
ctur
e’.
iii) I
n co
nfor
mity
with
Lon
don
Pla
n P
olic
ies
liste
d:
3C.1
7 A
lloca
tion
of S
treet
Spa
ce b
ulle
t 1;
3C.2
2 P
arki
ng S
trate
gy b
ulle
t 5; a
nd
3C.2
4 Fr
eigh
t Stra
tegy
bul
lets
4 a
nd 5
. iv
) N/A
v)
N/A
vi
) The
pol
icy
is c
onsi
sten
t with
PP
G 1
3 pa
ragr
aph
6 bu
llet 1
1;
and
Frei
ght P
arag
raph
46
in re
spec
t of d
eliv
ery
faci
litie
s, a
nd is
a
spec
ifica
lly lo
cal p
olic
y to
add
ress
circ
umst
ance
s in
Tol
wor
th.
R
ES1.
Con
trol
of D
evel
opm
ent,
Site
Ass
embl
y,
n/
an/
an/
a
To b
e i)
Par
t 1 p
olic
ies
prov
ide
the
cent
ral s
trate
gy
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
etc
THE
CO
UN
CIL
WIL
L SE
EK T
O IM
PLEM
ENT
THE
PLA
N’S
PO
LIC
IES
AN
D P
RO
POSA
LS B
Y C
ON
TRO
LLIN
G D
EVEL
OPM
ENT
IN
AC
CO
RD
AN
CE
WIT
H T
HE
TOW
N A
ND
C
OU
NTR
Y PL
AN
NIN
G A
CTS
, AN
D IN
A
PPR
OPR
IATE
CA
SES
BY:
(A
) EN
TER
ING
INTO
JO
INT
DEV
ELO
PMEN
T SC
HEM
ES;
(B)
ASS
ISTI
NG
WIT
H S
ITE
ASS
EMB
LY B
Y D
ISPO
SIN
G O
F C
OU
NC
IL-O
WN
ED L
AN
D,
EITH
ER O
N A
LO
NG
LEA
SEH
OLD
OR
FR
EEH
OLD
; (C
) U
SIN
G C
OM
PULS
OR
Y PU
RC
HA
SE
POW
ERS
WH
ERE
ALL
OTH
ER M
EAN
S O
F SI
TE
ASS
EMB
LY O
R A
CQ
UIS
ITIO
N H
AVE
FA
ILED
; (D
) A
RTI
CLE
4 D
IREC
TIO
NS.
TH
E C
OU
NC
IL W
ILL
ENC
OU
RA
GE
STA
TUTO
RY
UN
DER
TAK
ERS
AN
D U
TILI
TY C
OM
PAN
IES
TO
REL
EASE
UN
DER
USE
D S
ITES
FO
R
DEV
ELO
PMEN
T IN
AC
CO
RD
AN
CE
WIT
H
POLI
CIE
S A
ND
PR
OPO
SALS
IN T
HE
PLA
N.
repl
aced
in
the
core
st
rate
gy
ii) N
/A
iii) N
/A
iv) N
/A
v) N
/A
vi) I
t is
cons
ider
ed n
eces
sary
to s
ave
the
chap
ter o
n re
sour
ces
and
impl
emen
tatio
n be
caus
e it
expl
ains
the
mea
ns b
y w
hich
the
plan
will
be im
plem
ente
d. P
olic
y R
ES
1 is
par
t of t
hat
expl
anat
ion.
RES
2. P
lann
ing
Con
ditio
ns a
nd A
gree
men
ts
THE
CO
UN
CIL
WIL
L, IN
APP
RO
PRIA
TE C
ASE
S,
IMPO
SE C
ON
DIT
ION
S O
N P
LAN
NIN
G
PER
MIS
SIO
NS
AN
D E
NTE
R IN
TO P
LAN
NIN
G
AG
REE
MEN
TS W
ITH
DEV
ELO
PER
S U
ND
ER
n/
a
n/a
To
be
repl
aced
in
the
core
st
rate
gy
i) P
art 1
pol
icie
s pr
ovid
e th
e ce
ntra
l stra
tegy
ii)
N/A
iii
) Pol
icy
6A.4
and
6A
.5 re
quire
loca
l aut
horit
ies
to s
et o
ut a
cl
ear f
ram
ewor
k fo
r neg
otia
tions
on
plan
ning
obl
igat
ions
in
UD
P’s
. iv
) N/A
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
SEC
TIO
N 1
06 O
F TH
E TO
WN
AN
D C
OU
NTR
Y PL
AN
NIN
G A
CT
1990
AN
D O
THER
AC
TS, T
O
ENSU
RE
THA
T PA
RTI
CU
LAR
ASP
ECTS
OF
THE
DEV
ELO
PMEN
T A
RE
SEC
UR
ED, T
HA
T TH
E D
EVEL
OPM
ENT
IS C
OM
PLET
ED A
S A
WH
OLE
, TH
AT
THE
INTE
GR
ITY
OF
THE
PLA
N’S
PO
LIC
IES
AR
E M
AIN
TAIN
ED, O
R F
OR
OTH
ER
PLA
NN
ING
PU
RPO
SES.
v) N
/A
vi) T
his
polic
y m
akes
cle
ar th
e C
ounc
il’s in
tent
ion
to u
se
plan
ning
con
ditio
ns a
nd a
gree
men
ts c
larif
ying
a k
ey m
echa
nism
fo
r im
plem
enta
tion
help
ful t
o us
ers
of th
e pl
an.
RES
4. S
uppl
emen
tary
Pla
nnin
g G
uida
nce
(SPG
) TH
E C
OU
NC
IL W
ILL
PREP
AR
E A
ND
UPD
ATE
PL
AN
NIN
G B
RIE
FS A
ND
SU
PPLE
MEN
TAR
Y PL
AN
NIN
G G
UID
AN
CE
AS
NEC
ESSA
RY
TO
ASS
IST
DEV
ELO
PMEN
T IN
AC
CO
RD
AN
CE
WIT
H T
HE
PLA
N’S
PO
LIC
IES
AN
D
PRO
POSA
LS.
PRIO
RIT
IES
FOR
TH
E PR
EPA
RA
TIO
N O
F SU
CH
MA
TER
IAL
WIL
L B
E R
EVIE
WED
TH
RO
UG
H T
HE
AN
NU
AL
MO
NIT
OR
ING
AN
D R
EVIE
W P
RO
CES
S. (
Cro
ss
refe
renc
e Po
licy
RES
7).
n/
an/
an/
a
To b
e re
plac
ed a
s pa
rt of
the
core
stra
tegy
.
i) P
art 1
pol
icie
s pr
ovid
e th
e ce
ntra
l stra
tegy
ii)
N/A
iii)
N/A
iv
) N/A
v)
N/A
vi
) In
a se
nse
the
polic
y is
out
of d
ate
beca
use
the
Pla
nnin
g an
d C
ompu
lsor
y P
urch
ase
Act
200
4 m
akes
no
prov
isio
n fo
r SP
G.
In
stea
d au
thor
ities
can
now
pre
pare
Sup
plem
enta
ry P
lann
ing
Doc
umen
ts, a
dher
ing
to c
erta
in s
tatu
tory
pro
cess
es in
clud
ing
sust
aina
bilit
y ap
prai
sal a
nd c
omm
unity
invo
lvem
ent.
How
ever
, th
e C
ounc
il ha
s a
num
ber o
f SP
Gs
prep
ared
und
er th
e ol
d sy
stem
that
are
rela
ted
to U
DP
pol
icie
s. R
eten
tion
of P
olic
y R
ES
4 w
ill m
aint
ain
a he
lpfu
l lin
k be
twee
n S
PG
s an
d th
e U
DP
.
RES
5. T
empo
rary
Pla
nnin
g Pe
rmis
sion
s an
d R
enew
al o
f Exp
ired
Perm
issi
ons
THE
CO
UN
CIL
WIL
L H
AVE
REG
AR
D T
O T
HE
PLA
N’S
PO
LIC
IES
AN
D P
RO
POSA
LS W
HEN
n/
an/
an/
a
Rep
lace
men
t w
ill b
e co
nsid
ered
as
part
of th
e
i) P
art 1
pol
icie
s pr
ovid
e th
e ce
ntra
l stra
tegy
ii)
N/A
iii)
N/A
iv
) N/A
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
CO
NSI
DER
ING
APP
LIC
ATI
ON
S FO
R
TEM
POR
AR
Y PL
AN
NIN
G P
ERM
ISSI
ON
AN
D
FOR
TH
E R
ENEW
AL
OF
PLA
NN
ING
PE
RM
ISSI
ON
S TH
AT
HA
VE E
XPIR
ED.
core
stra
tegy
an
d/or
de
velo
pmen
t co
ntro
l pol
icy
DP
D.
v) N
/A
vi) I
t is
cons
ider
ed a
hel
pful
ele
men
t of t
he im
plem
enta
tion
chap
ter t
o re
fer t
o an
d cl
arify
the
way
tem
pora
ry p
lann
ing
appl
icat
ions
and
rene
wal
s of
pla
nnin
g ap
plic
atio
ns w
ill be
tre
ated
.
RES
6. P
rovi
sion
of A
dequ
ate
Infr
astr
uctu
re
PLA
NN
ING
PER
MIS
SIO
N F
OR
NEW
D
EVEL
OPM
ENT
WIL
L O
NLY
BE
GR
AN
TED
W
HER
E A
DEQ
UA
TE IN
FRA
STR
UC
TUR
E A
ND
ES
SEN
TIA
L C
OM
MU
NIT
Y FA
CIL
ITIE
S A
RE
AVA
ILA
BLE
, FIR
MLY
CO
MM
ITTE
D, O
R
PRO
VID
ED A
S PA
RT
OF
THE
DEV
ELO
PMEN
T SC
HEM
E.
n/
a
n/a
R
epla
cem
ent
will
be
cons
ider
ed a
s pa
rt of
the
core
stra
tegy
i) P
art 1
pol
icie
s pr
ovid
e th
e ce
ntra
l stra
tegy
ii)
The
pol
icy
supp
orts
the
com
mun
ity p
lan
prio
rity
to e
nsur
e th
at
peop
le c
an a
cces
s go
od s
ervi
ces
and
com
mun
ity fa
cilit
ies.
iii)
Pol
icy
3A.1
5 st
ates
that
‘ade
quat
e pr
ovis
ion
for [
soci
al
infra
stru
ctur
e an
d co
mm
unity
faci
litie
s] is
par
ticul
arly
impo
rtant
in
maj
or a
reas
of n
ew d
evel
opm
ent a
nd re
gene
ratio
n’ a
nd
requ
ires
UD
P po
licie
s ‘to
ens
ure
that
app
ropr
iate
[com
mun
ity]
faci
litie
s ar
e pr
ovid
ed w
ithin
eas
y re
ach
by w
alki
ng a
nd p
ublic
tra
nspo
rt of
the
popu
latio
n th
at u
se th
em.’
iv) N
/A
v) n
/a
vi) P
rovi
sion
of i
nfra
stru
ctur
e w
ith n
ew d
evel
opm
ent i
s a
criti
cal
mat
ter f
or th
e de
velo
pmen
t pla
n. T
his
polic
y is
key
to e
nsur
e th
at n
eces
sary
infra
stru
ctur
e is
pro
vide
d, a
nd is
use
d al
ongs
ide
Pol
icy
RE
S2
Pla
nnin
g co
nditi
ons
and
agre
emen
ts.
R
ES7.
Mon
itorin
g TH
E C
OU
NC
IL W
ILL
MO
NIT
OR
: (A
)IMPL
EMEN
TATI
ON
OF
THE
PLA
N’S
n/
an/
an/
a
Rep
lace
men
t w
ill b
e co
nsid
ered
as
i) P
art 1
pol
icie
s pr
ovid
e th
e ce
ntra
l stra
tegy
ii)
N/A
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
PRO
POSA
LS;
(B)T
HE
EFFE
CTI
VEN
ESS
OF
THE
PLA
N’S
PO
LIC
IES;
(C
)TH
E C
ON
TIN
UIN
G R
ELEV
AN
CE
OF
THE
PLA
N’S
PO
LIC
IES
AN
D P
RO
POSA
LS A
S C
IRC
UM
STA
NC
ES C
HA
NG
E;
(D)
THE
NEC
ESSI
TY F
OR
TH
E A
DO
PTIO
N
OF
NEW
PO
LIC
IES
AN
D P
RO
POSA
LS T
O
AD
DR
ESS
ISSU
ES W
HIC
H M
AY
AR
ISE
AFT
ER
THE
AD
OPT
ION
OF
THE
PLA
N. A
N A
NN
UA
L M
ON
ITO
RIN
G R
EPO
RT
CO
VER
ING
SU
CH
IS
SUES
WIL
L B
E PR
EPA
RED
AN
D, I
F N
ECES
SAR
Y, T
HE
CO
UN
CIL
WIL
L TH
EN T
AK
E A
PPR
OPR
IATE
STE
PS T
O A
MEN
D O
R R
EVIE
W
THE
PLA
N.
part
of th
e co
re s
trate
gy
iii) N
/A
iv) N
/A
v) N
/A
vi) M
onito
ring
is a
key
ele
men
t of p
lan-
mak
ing
and
a re
fere
nce
to th
is is
con
side
red
impo
rtant
. The
sup
porti
ng te
xt e
xpla
ins
that
th
e 60
indi
cato
rs li
sted
in P
art 1
will
be
mon
itore
d vi
a A
nnua
l M
onito
ring
Rep
orts
. It
ther
efor
e pr
ovid
es a
hel
pful
link
to th
e A
MR
.
RES
8. C
omm
unity
Ben
efit
PLA
NN
ING
CO
ND
ITIO
NS
MA
Y B
E C
ON
SID
ERED
IN O
RD
ER T
O P
RO
VID
E R
ELA
TED
BEN
EFIT
S W
HEN
A P
LAN
NIN
G
APP
LIC
ATI
ON
IS D
ETER
MIN
ED. W
HER
E IT
IS
REA
SON
AB
LE T
O S
EEK
SU
CH
BEN
EFIT
S B
Y W
AY
OF
A P
LAN
NIN
G O
BLI
GA
TIO
N (O
R
OTH
ER A
GR
EEM
ENT)
TH
E EX
ISTE
NC
E O
R
LIK
ELIH
OO
D O
F SU
CH
AN
OB
LIG
ATI
ON
WIL
L B
E M
ATE
RIA
L TO
TH
E G
RA
NTI
NG
OF
PLA
NN
ING
PER
MIS
SIO
N.
n/
a
To b
e re
plac
ed in
th
e co
re
stra
tegy
i) P
art 1
pol
icie
s pr
ovid
e th
e ce
ntra
l stra
tegy
ii)
Pol
icy
RE
S8 p
rovi
des
a to
ol fo
r ach
ievi
ng th
e ov
eral
l ob
ject
ives
for t
he C
omm
unity
Stra
tegy
, spe
cific
ally
in re
latio
n to
he
alth
and
soc
ial c
are,
com
mun
ity s
afet
y, e
duca
tion
and
lifel
ong
lear
ning
, hou
sing
and
tran
spor
t.
iii) P
olic
y 6A
.4 a
nd 6
A.5
requ
ire lo
cal a
utho
ritie
s to
set
out
a
clea
r fra
mew
ork
for n
egot
iatio
ns o
n pl
anni
ng o
blig
atio
ns in
U
DP
’s.
iv) N
/A
v) N
/A
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
vi) P
olic
y R
ES
8 is
crit
ical
to e
nabl
e th
e C
ounc
il to
con
tinue
ne
gotia
ting
S10
6 ag
reem
ents
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith th
e fo
rms
of
com
mun
ity b
enef
it lis
ted
in th
e su
ppor
ting
text
to th
e po
licy.
P
olic
y R
ES
8 fu
rther
dev
elop
s ov
erar
chin
g ob
ject
ives
of t
he
Lond
on P
lan
and
stat
utor
y A
cts
by p
rovi
ding
the
loca
l con
text
an
d ap
proa
ch to
pla
nnin
g ob
ligat
ions
.
PRO
POSA
L SI
TE: P
S1
Form
er P
ower
Sta
tion,
Ske
rne
Roa
d/ C
anbu
ry
Gar
dens
S
ite in
Kin
gsto
n to
wn
cent
re a
lloca
ted
for
resi
dent
ial,
hote
l and
ass
ocia
ted
uses
.
To
be
repl
aced
in
the
Kin
gsto
n To
wn
Cen
tre
area
act
ion
plan
i) Th
e U
DP
stra
tegi
c po
licie
s pr
ovid
e th
e ce
ntra
l stra
tegy
ii)
Thi
s pr
opos
al s
ite w
ill h
elp
impl
emen
t the
loca
l eco
nom
y an
d ho
usin
g ob
ject
ives
of K
ings
ton’
s C
omm
unity
Pla
n.
iii
) Hot
el a
nd re
side
ntia
l use
s on
this
tow
n ce
ntre
site
are
in
gene
ral c
onfo
rmity
with
Lon
don
Pla
n po
licie
s 2A
.5 a
nd 2
A.6
pr
omot
ing
com
mer
cial
and
hig
her d
ensi
ty re
side
ntia
l de
velo
pmen
t in
subu
rban
tow
n ce
ntre
s.
iv) n
/a
v) T
his
is a
site
allo
catio
n fo
r an
area
of s
igni
fican
t cha
nge.
vi
) Thi
s is
a s
ite a
lloca
tion
that
is n
ot y
et im
plem
ente
d.
This
site
sup
ports
the
key
gove
rnm
ent o
bjec
tives
of p
rom
otin
g ne
w h
ousi
ng e
cono
mic
dev
elop
men
t and
rege
nera
tion
of
Kin
gsto
n To
wn
Cen
tre.
PS
1 w
ill be
inco
rpor
ated
into
the
Kin
gsto
n To
wn
Cen
tre A
rea
Act
ion
Pla
n as
P17
. Unt
il th
e A
AP
is a
dopt
ed P
S1
requ
ires
savi
ng.
Par
t of t
his
site
has
per
mis
sion
for 1
91 re
side
ntia
l uni
ts,
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
an a
pplic
atio
n w
hich
has
not
yet
bee
n im
plem
ente
d.
Ther
e is
a p
lann
ing
brie
f for
this
site
.
Nor
th W
est C
orne
r of F
ife R
oad
PS10
S
ite in
Kin
gsto
n to
wn
cent
re a
lloca
ted
for r
etai
l, re
tail-
rela
ted
(cla
ss A
2&A
3), r
esid
entia
l, bu
sine
ss
use
(cla
ss B
1).
To
be
repl
aced
in
the
Kin
gsto
n To
wn
Cen
tre
area
act
ion
plan
i) Th
e U
DP
stra
tegi
c po
licie
s pr
ovid
e th
e ce
ntra
l stra
tegy
ii)
Thi
s si
te h
elps
del
iver
the
loca
l eco
nom
y an
d ho
usin
g ob
ject
ives
of K
ings
ton’
s C
omm
unity
Pla
n.
iii) T
he d
esig
nate
d ap
prop
riate
use
s fo
r PS
10 a
re in
con
form
ity
with
Lon
don
Pla
n po
licie
s 2A
.5, 2
A.6
, 3D
.1, 3
D.2
and
3D
.3
whi
ch s
eek
to e
nhan
ce th
e ro
le o
f tow
n ce
ntre
s by
enc
oura
ging
a
full
rang
e of
use
s in
clud
ing
resi
dent
ial.
iv) n
/a
v) T
his
is a
site
allo
catio
n fo
r an
area
of s
igni
fican
t cha
nge
vi) T
his
site
allo
catio
n is
not
yet
impl
emen
ted
but t
here
is a
n ou
tsta
ndin
g pe
rmis
sion
on
part
of th
e si
te fo
r 6x2
bed
room
and
2x
1 be
droo
m fl
ats.
Thi
s si
te s
uppo
rts th
e ke
y go
vern
men
t ob
ject
ives
of p
rom
otin
g ne
w h
ousi
ng, e
cono
mic
dev
elop
men
t an
d re
gene
ratio
n of
tow
n ce
ntre
s in
clud
ing
reta
il.
PS
10 w
ill be
inco
rpor
ated
into
the
Kin
gsto
n To
wn
Cen
tre A
rea
Act
ion
Pla
n as
P9.
Unt
il th
e A
AP
is a
dopt
ed P
S10
requ
ires
savi
ng.
107-
163
Cla
renc
e St
reet
/Sta
tion
Bui
ldin
gs, F
ife
Roa
d an
d 58
-66
Fife
Roa
d/30
Cas
tle S
tree
t and
Fo
rmer
Em
pire
Wor
ks
To
be
repl
aced
in
the
Kin
gsto
n
i) Th
e U
DP
stra
tegi
c po
licie
s pr
ovid
e th
e ce
ntra
l stra
tegy
ii)
The
site
hel
ps d
eliv
er th
e lo
cal e
cono
my
and
hous
ing
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
PS11
S
ite in
Kin
gsto
n to
wn
cent
re a
lloca
ted
for r
etai
l, re
tail-
rela
ted
(cla
ss A
2&A
3), r
esid
entia
l, le
isur
e,
busi
ness
use
(cla
ss B
1).
Tow
n C
entre
ar
ea a
ctio
n pl
an
obje
ctiv
es o
f Kin
gsto
n’s
Com
mun
ity P
lan.
iii)
The
des
igna
ted
appr
opria
te u
ses
for P
S11
are
in c
onfo
rmity
w
ith L
ondo
n P
lan
polic
ies
2A.5
, 2A
.6, 3
D.1
, 3D
.2 a
nd 3
D.3
w
hich
see
k to
enh
ance
the
role
of t
own
cent
res
by e
ncou
ragi
ng
a fu
ll ra
nge
of u
ses
incl
udin
g re
side
ntia
l. iv
) n/a
v)
Thi
s is
a s
ite a
lloca
tion
for a
n ar
ea o
f sig
nific
ant c
hang
e vi
) Thi
s si
te s
uppo
rts th
e ke
y go
vern
men
t obj
ectiv
es o
f pr
omot
ing
new
hou
sing
, eco
nom
ic d
evel
opm
ent a
nd
rege
nera
tion
of K
ings
ton
Tow
n C
entre
. Th
is is
a s
ite a
lloca
tion
that
is n
ot y
et im
plem
ente
d. P
S11
will
be
inco
rpor
ated
into
the
Kin
gsto
n To
wn
Cen
tre A
rea
Act
ion
Pla
n as
P
8. U
ntil
the
AA
P is
ado
pted
PS
11 re
quire
s sa
ving
.
55
-83a
Cla
renc
e St
reet
, 4-4
6 Fi
fe R
oad
PS12
S
ite in
Kin
gsto
n to
wn
cent
re a
lloca
ted
for r
etai
l, re
tail-
rela
ted
uses
(cla
ss A
2&A
3), r
esid
entia
l (on
up
per f
loor
s).
To
be
repl
aced
in
the
Kin
gsto
n To
wn
Cen
tre
area
act
ion
plan
i) Th
e U
DP
stra
tegi
c po
licie
s pr
ovid
e th
e ce
ntra
l stra
tegy
for
deliv
erin
g ap
prop
riate
use
s fo
r the
pro
posa
l site
. ii)
The
site
hel
ps d
eliv
er th
e lo
cal e
cono
my
and
hous
ing
obje
ctiv
es o
f Kin
gsto
n’s
Com
mun
ity P
lan.
iii)
The
des
igna
ted
appr
opria
te u
ses
for P
S12
are
in c
onfo
rmity
w
ith L
ondo
n P
lan
polic
ies
2A.5
, 2A
.6, 3
D.1
, 3D
.2 a
nd 3
D.3
w
hich
see
k to
enh
ance
the
role
of t
own
cent
res
by e
ncou
ragi
ng
a fu
ll ra
nge
of u
ses
incl
udin
g re
side
ntia
l.
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
iv) n
/a
v) T
his
is a
site
allo
catio
n fo
r an
area
of s
igni
fican
t cha
nge
vi) T
his
is a
site
allo
catio
n th
at is
not
yet
impl
emen
ted.
Thi
s si
te
supp
orts
the
key
gove
rnm
ent o
bjec
tives
of p
rom
otin
g ne
w
hous
ing,
eco
nom
ic d
evel
opm
ent a
nd re
gene
ratio
n of
tow
n ce
ntre
s in
clud
ing
reta
il.
PS
12 w
ill be
inco
rpor
ated
into
the
Kin
gsto
n To
wn
Cen
tre A
rea
Act
ion
Pla
n as
P1.
Unt
il th
e A
AP
is a
dopt
ed P
S12
requ
ires
savi
ng.
Gui
ldha
ll/B
ath
Pass
age/
St J
ames
’ Roa
d PS
17
Site
in K
ings
ton
tow
n ce
ntre
allo
cate
d fo
r civ
ic
uses
, inc
ludi
ng c
ourts
.
To
be
repl
aced
in
the
Kin
gsto
n To
wn
Cen
tre
area
act
ion
plan
i) Th
e U
DP
stra
tegi
c po
licie
s pr
ovid
e th
e ce
ntra
l stra
tegy
ii)
Thi
s al
loca
tion
cont
ribut
es to
the
deliv
ery
of th
e lo
cal e
cono
my
obje
ctiv
es o
f Kin
gsto
n’s
Com
mun
ity P
lan.
iii
) The
des
igna
ted
appr
opria
te u
ses
for P
S17
are
in g
ener
al
conf
orm
ity w
ith L
ondo
n P
lan
polic
ies
2A.5
, 2A
.6, w
hich
see
k to
en
hanc
e th
e ro
le o
f tow
n ce
ntre
s by
enc
oura
ging
a fu
ll ra
nge
of
uses
in p
artic
ular
in s
ubur
ban
met
ropo
litan
cen
tres.
iv
) n/a
v)
Thi
s is
a s
ite a
lloca
tion
for a
n ar
ea o
f sig
nific
ant c
hang
e vi
) Thi
s is
a s
ite a
lloca
tion
that
is n
ot y
et im
plem
ente
d. T
his
site
su
ppor
ts th
e ke
y go
vern
men
t obj
ectiv
e of
pro
mot
ing
the
econ
omic
dev
elop
men
t and
rege
nera
tion
of K
ings
ton
Tow
n C
entre
.
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
PS
17 w
ill be
inco
rpor
ated
into
the
Kin
gsto
n To
wn
Cen
tre A
rea
Act
ion
Pla
n as
P14
. Th
e A
AP
pro
pose
s no
t to
incl
ude
the
mai
n gu
ildha
ll bu
ildin
g as
a p
ropo
sal s
ite b
ut in
clud
es th
e la
nd to
the
east
of t
he s
ite (G
H1)
. U
ntil
the
AA
P is
ado
pted
PS
14 re
quire
s sa
ving
.
Su
rrey
Cou
nty
Hal
l, Pe
nrhy
n R
oad
PS19
S
ite in
Kin
gsto
n to
wn
cent
re a
lloca
ted
for c
ivic
us
es, e
duca
tion.
To
be
repl
aced
in
the
Kin
gsto
n To
wn
Cen
tre
area
act
ion
plan
i) Th
e U
DP
stra
tegi
c po
licie
s pr
ovid
e th
e ce
ntra
l stra
tegy
ii)
Thi
s al
loca
tion
cont
ribut
es to
the
deliv
ery
of th
e lo
cal e
cono
my
and
educ
atio
n an
d lif
elon
g le
arni
ng o
bjec
tives
of K
ings
ton’
s C
omm
unity
Pla
n.
iii) T
his
prop
osal
site
allo
catio
n is
in g
ener
al c
onfo
rmity
with
Lo
ndon
Pla
n po
licie
s 2A
.5, 2
A.6
, whi
ch s
eek
to e
nhan
ce th
e ro
le
subu
rban
met
ropo
litan
cen
tres
and
also
in c
onfo
rmity
with
Lo
ndon
Pla
n po
licy
3A.2
2 w
hich
requ
ires
boro
ughs
to p
rom
ote
and
supp
ort h
ighe
r edu
catio
n fa
cilit
ies
thro
ugh
deve
lopm
ent
plan
s.
iv) n
/a
v) T
his
is a
site
allo
catio
n fo
r an
area
of s
igni
fican
t cha
nge
vi) T
he s
ite h
as a
n ou
tsta
ndin
g pe
rmis
sion
for a
cha
nge
of u
se
from
civ
ic o
ffice
s to
D1
educ
atio
n, a
nd o
utst
andi
ng p
erm
issi
on
for r
edev
elop
men
t of S
taff
Clu
b an
d te
nnis
cou
rt si
te to
pos
sibl
e th
ree
stor
ey b
uild
ing
for a
cade
mic
/anc
illary
use
s. P
S19
will
be
inco
rpor
ated
into
the
Kin
gsto
n To
wn
Cen
tre A
rea
Act
ion
Pla
n as
P
15.
Unt
il th
e A
AP
is a
dopt
ed P
S19
requ
ires
savi
ng.
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
R
ex M
otor
s, 1
96-1
98 C
ambr
idge
Roa
d, K
ings
ton
PS27
S
ite a
lloca
ted
for g
ener
al in
dust
ry (c
lass
B2)
and
ot
her u
ses
of a
n in
dust
rial n
atur
e.
n/
a
To b
e re
plac
ed in
th
e S
ite
Allo
catio
ns
DP
D.
i) Th
e U
DP
stra
tegi
c po
licie
s pr
ovid
e th
e ce
ntra
l stra
tegy
ii)
The
allo
catio
n is
in a
ccor
danc
e w
ith th
e ob
ject
ives
of t
he lo
cal
econ
omy
them
e of
Kin
gsto
n’s
Com
mun
ity P
lan.
iii
) The
des
igna
ted
appr
opria
te u
ses
for P
S27
are
in g
ener
al
conf
orm
ity w
ith L
ondo
n P
lan
polic
y 3B
.1 w
hich
see
ks to
m
aint
ain
a ra
nge
of b
usin
ess
prem
ises
of d
iffer
ent t
ypes
and
si
zes
in o
rder
to m
eet t
he n
eeds
of d
iffer
ent b
usin
esse
s.
iv) n
/a
v) n
/a
vi) T
his
allo
catio
n is
nec
essa
ry a
s th
e si
te w
ould
ben
efit
from
ra
tiona
lisat
ion,
rede
velo
pmen
t and
env
ironm
enta
l im
prov
emen
ts. T
he s
ite a
lloca
tion
assi
sts
the
key
gove
rnm
ent
obje
ctiv
e of
eco
nom
ic d
evel
opm
ent a
nd re
gene
ratio
n.Th
is s
ite is
in
gen
eral
con
form
ity w
ith P
PG
4.
Kin
gsto
n U
nive
rsity
, Kin
gsto
n H
ill
PS32
S
ite a
lloca
ted
for e
duca
tion.
n/
a
To b
e re
plac
ed in
th
e S
ite
Allo
catio
ns
DP
D.
i) Th
e U
DP
stra
tegi
c po
licie
s pr
ovid
e th
e ce
ntra
l stra
tegy
ii)
Thi
s al
loca
tion
assi
sts
in th
e im
plem
ent t
he o
bjec
tives
of t
he
educ
atio
n an
d lif
elon
g le
arni
ng th
eme
in K
ings
ton’
s C
omm
unity
P
lan.
iii)
Thi
s pr
opos
al s
ite a
lloca
tion
is in
con
form
ity w
ith L
ondo
n P
lan
polic
y 3A
.22
Hig
her a
nd fu
rther
edu
catio
n w
hich
requ
ires
boro
ughs
to p
rom
ote
and
supp
ort h
ighe
r edu
catio
n fa
cilit
ies
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
thro
ugh
deve
lopm
ent p
lans
.
iv) n
/a
v) n
/a
vi) T
his
allo
catio
n is
nec
essa
ry to
hel
p m
anag
e co
-ord
inat
ed
deve
lopm
ent o
n th
is s
ite w
hich
is c
over
ed b
y a
num
ber o
f di
ffere
nt d
esig
natio
ns, b
alan
cing
this
with
the
Uni
vers
ity’s
op
erat
iona
l req
uire
men
ts.
It is
cur
rent
ly u
nim
plem
ente
d an
d ha
s pe
rmis
sion
for t
he
dem
oliti
on o
f exi
stin
g gy
mna
sium
bui
ldin
g an
d er
ectio
n of
3
stor
ey e
xten
sion
to L
earn
ing
Res
ourc
e ce
ntre
with
ass
ocia
ted
land
scap
ing
wor
ks in
clud
ing
chan
ge in
leve
ls.
Ther
e is
a p
lann
ing
brie
f for
this
site
.
Tolw
orth
Mai
n A
llotm
ents
, Sur
bito
n PS
40
Site
allo
cate
d fo
r par
k, s
ports
faci
litie
s, lo
cal n
atur
e re
serv
e, c
omm
unity
faci
litie
s, a
llotm
ents
.
n/
a
To b
e re
plac
ed in
th
e S
ite
Allo
catio
ns
DP
D.
i) Th
e U
DP
stra
tegi
c po
licie
s pr
ovid
e th
e ce
ntra
l stra
tegy
ii)
PS
40 a
ccor
ds w
ith K
ings
ton’
s C
omm
unity
Pla
n an
d he
lps
deliv
er th
e ov
eral
l env
ironm
ent
and
heal
th a
nd s
ocia
l car
e ob
ject
ives
. iii)
Thi
s pr
opos
al s
ite a
lloca
tion
is in
con
form
ity w
ith P
olic
y 3D
.7
of th
e Lo
ndon
Pla
n w
hich
enc
oura
ges
boro
ughs
to re
alis
e th
e po
tent
ial v
alue
of o
pen
spac
e in
clud
ing
the
bene
fits
asso
ciat
ed
with
spo
rt an
d re
crea
tion,
chi
ldre
n’s
play
, bio
dive
rsity
and
the
envi
ronm
ent.
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
iv) n
/a
v) n
/a
vi) T
his
site
allo
catio
n is
nec
essa
ry a
s th
e si
te h
as b
een
iden
tifie
d as
key
opp
ortu
nity
for p
rovi
ding
enh
ance
d op
en s
pace
in
the
loca
lity
alon
g w
ith s
cope
for t
he p
rovi
sion
of n
ew
com
mun
ity fa
cilit
ies.
Per
mis
sion
was
gra
nted
for t
he e
xcav
atio
n an
d en
larg
emen
t of t
he e
xist
ing
pond
.
Land
at K
ings
ton
Roa
d / J
ubile
e W
ay, T
olw
orth
PS
43
Site
allo
cate
d fo
r hot
el (K
ings
ton
Roa
d fro
ntag
e),
recr
eatio
n.
x
n/a
To
be
repl
aced
in
the
Site
Al
loca
tions
D
PD
.
i) Th
e U
DP
stra
tegi
c po
licie
s pr
ovid
e th
e ce
ntra
l stra
tegy
ii)
Thi
s si
te c
ontri
bute
s to
del
iver
ing
the
com
mun
ity p
lan
obje
ctiv
es fo
r the
loca
l eco
nom
y an
d th
e en
viro
nmen
t. It
als
o co
ntrib
utes
to th
e de
liver
y of
the
com
mun
ity p
lan
visi
on to
mak
e K
ings
ton
‘a fo
cus
for t
ouris
m a
nd re
crea
tion’
.
iii) T
he L
ondo
n pl
an s
ugge
st th
at to
wn
cent
re lo
catio
ns a
re
pref
erre
d fo
r hot
el u
se.
iv
) n/a
v)
n/a
vi
) Thi
s al
loca
tion
cont
ribut
es to
mee
ting
an id
entif
ied
need
for
recr
eatio
nal f
acili
ties
in th
e bo
roug
h fo
r whi
ch th
ere
are
no
alte
rnat
ive
site
s id
entif
ied.
The
allo
catio
n ha
s no
t bee
n im
plem
ente
d.
Tolw
orth
Cou
rt F
arm
and
Far
m L
ands
, Tol
wor
th
PS44
S
ite a
lloca
ted
for o
pen
recr
eatio
n.
n/
a
To b
e re
plac
ed in
th
e S
ite
i) Th
e U
DP
stra
tegi
c po
licie
s pr
ovid
e th
e ce
ntra
l stra
tegy
ii)
PS
44 a
ccor
ds w
ith K
ings
ton’
s C
omm
unity
pla
n an
d as
sist
s in
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
Al
loca
tions
D
PD
. de
liver
ing
the
over
all e
nviro
nmen
t and
hea
lth a
nd s
ocia
l car
e ob
ject
ives
. iii)
Thi
s pr
opos
al s
ite a
lloca
tion
is in
con
form
ity w
ith P
olic
y 3D
.7
of th
e Lo
ndon
Pla
n w
hich
enc
oura
ges
boro
ughs
to re
alis
e th
e po
tent
ial v
alue
of o
pen
spac
e in
clud
ing
the
bene
fits
asso
ciat
ed
with
spo
rt an
d re
crea
tion.
iv
) n/a
v)
n/a
vi
) Thi
s si
te fo
rms
part
of th
e H
ogsm
ill V
alle
y M
OL.
The
re is
sc
ope
for r
ecre
atio
n fa
cilit
ies
of c
omm
unity
ben
efit.
The
al
loca
tion
has
not b
een
impl
emen
ted.
Kin
g Ed
war
d’s
Play
ing
Fiel
d an
d La
nd N
orth
of
Cla
yton
Roa
d, H
ook
PS45
S
ite a
lloca
ted
for o
utdo
or s
port
and
recr
eatio
n.
n/
a
To b
e re
plac
ed in
th
e S
ite
Allo
catio
ns
DP
D.
i) Th
e U
DP
stra
tegi
c po
licie
s pr
ovid
e th
e ce
ntra
l stra
tegy
ii)
PS
45 a
ccor
ds w
ith K
ings
ton’
s C
omm
unity
Pla
n an
d he
lps
deliv
er th
e ov
eral
l obj
ectiv
es o
f the
env
ironm
ent a
nd h
ealth
and
so
cial
car
e th
emes
. iii)
Thi
s pr
opos
al s
ite a
lloca
tion
is in
con
form
ity w
ith P
olic
y 3D
.7
of th
e Lo
ndon
Pla
n w
hich
enc
oura
ges
boro
ughs
to re
alis
e th
e po
tent
ial v
alue
of o
pen
spac
e in
clud
ing
the
bene
fits
asso
ciat
ed
with
spo
rt an
d re
crea
tion.
iv
) n/a
v)
n/a
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
vi) T
his
site
pre
sent
s an
opp
ortu
nity
to ra
tiona
lise
and
impr
ove
Gre
en B
elt L
and
that
cur
rent
ly s
uffe
rs fr
om p
oor a
cces
s an
d ap
pear
ance
. The
re is
sco
pe fo
r the
site
to c
ontri
bute
to m
eetin
g an
iden
tifie
d ne
ed fo
r rec
reat
ion
faci
litie
s in
the
boro
ugh.
The
ap
proa
ch c
onfo
rms
with
PP
G17
and
PPG
2.
The
allo
catio
n ha
s no
t bee
n im
plem
ente
d.
C
hurc
hfie
lds
Allo
tmen
ts, C
hurc
h La
ne,
Che
ssin
gton
PS
47
Site
allo
cate
d fo
r rec
reat
ion,
com
mun
ity fa
cilit
ies.
n/
a
To b
e re
plac
ed in
th
e S
ite
Allo
catio
ns
DP
D.
i) Th
e U
DP
stra
tegi
c po
licie
s pr
ovid
e th
e ce
ntra
l stra
tegy
ii)
PS
47 a
ccor
ds w
ith K
ings
ton’
s C
omm
unity
Pla
n an
d as
sist
s in
de
liver
ing
the
obje
ctiv
es o
f the
env
ironm
ent a
nd h
ealth
and
so
cial
car
e th
emes
. iii)
Thi
s pr
opos
al s
ite a
lloca
tion
is in
con
form
ity w
ith P
olic
y 3D
.7
of th
e Lo
ndon
Pla
n w
hich
enc
oura
ges
boro
ughs
to re
alis
e th
e po
tent
ial v
alue
of o
pen
spac
e in
clud
ing
the
bene
fits
asso
ciat
ed
with
spo
rt an
d re
crea
tion.
iv
) n/a
v)
n/a
vi
) Th
is a
lloca
tion
in th
e G
reen
Bel
t ser
ves
a pr
o-ac
tive
role
to
enha
nce
the
qual
ity o
f the
land
scap
e an
d pr
ovid
e re
crea
tion
faci
litie
s w
ith a
ncilla
ry d
evel
opm
ent.
This
allo
catio
n ha
s no
t bee
n im
plem
ente
d.
Che
ssin
gton
Wor
ld o
f Adv
entu
res
PS50
Th
is p
ropo
sals
site
doe
s no
t allo
cate
new
n/
a
To b
e re
plac
ed in
th
e S
ite
i) Th
e U
DP
stra
tegi
c po
licie
s pr
ovid
e th
e ce
ntra
l stra
tegy
ii)
PS
50 a
ccor
ds w
ith K
ings
ton’
s C
omm
unity
Pla
n en
viro
nmen
t
PP
S12
Crit
eria
Polic
y
i ii
iii v
vi
Intention for the saved
policy
Sup
porti
ng ju
stifi
catio
n
deve
lopm
ent b
ut c
larif
ies
the
stat
us o
f Che
ssin
gton
W
orld
of A
dven
ture
s as
a m
ajor
dev
elop
ed s
ite in
th
e G
reen
Bel
t in
acco
rdan
ce w
ith P
PG
2.
Allo
catio
ns
DP
D.
obje
ctiv
e. It
als
o co
ntrib
utes
to th
e de
liver
y of
the
com
mun
ity
plan
vis
ion
to m
ake
Kin
gsto
n a
‘focu
s fo
r tou
rism
and
re
crea
tion’
.
iii) T
his
prop
osal
site
allo
catio
n is
in g
ener
al c
onfo
rmity
with
the
appr
oach
take
n in
Lon
don
Pla
n po
licy
3D.8
whi
ch re
quire
s bo
roug
hs to
mai
ntai
n an
d pr
otec
t the
Gre
en B
elt w
ith a
gen
eral
pr
esum
ptio
n ag
ains
t ina
ppro
pria
te d
evel
opm
ent.
iv
) n/a
v)
n/a
vi
) Thi
s al
loca
tion
is n
eces
sary
in o
rder
to m
anag
e th
e de
velo
pmen
t of a
maj
or d
evel
oped
site
with
in th
e G
reen
Bel
t.
K1
APPENDIX K Executive, 20 March 2007
NON DOMESTIC RATES – DISCRETIONARY RATE RELIEF Report by the Strategic Director of Finance Leader of the Council
Purpose To advise Members of the powers to award Discretionary Rate Relief and to update the current policy. Action proposed by the Leader of the Council: The Executive is requested to: 1. agree the proposed policy set out in paragraphs 16 to 21 below, including revised
criteria for applying and provision for the ‘Top Up’ relief; and 2. confirm that the Authority will consider all applications on their merit and the revised
policy will be used as a means of securing a consistent approach to individual cases; Reason for proposed action To update the policy on Discretionary Relief addressing recent Ombudsman published reports regarding fettering discretion together with Government advice on restrictive policies.
BACKGROUND 1. Authorities have the discretion to grant rate relief against all or part of the amount of
non-domestic rates payable in respect of properties occupied by:
a) institutions or other organisations whose main objects are philanthropic or religious or concerned with social welfare, science, literature or the fine arts, or
b) club, society or other organisation used for the purposes of recreation.
2. The Council has to fund 25% of the amount of the discretionary relief with the
remaining 75% paid by the Government. 3. In addition to the above relief there is also the ability for local authorities to grant ‘Top
Up’ relief. This relief is also discretionary and applicable where mandatory rate relief awarded to registered charities (80%) has been granted. There is no cost to the Council regarding mandatory relief. The ‘Top Up’ relief can be awarded up to a maximum of 20%. Thus a combined relief of 100% can be allowed. Only 25% of the cost of ‘Top Up’ discretionary relief is met from central government funds. The Council has to meet the remaining 75%. When granting ‘Top Up’ discretionary relief the best interests of the council taxpayers should be considered.
4. A policy for a discretionary power should act in a way which does not ‘fetter’ the
proper exercise of that discretion. The policy must not eliminate the Authority’s consideration of an application for relief. A policy however is required as a means of securing a consistent approach to individual cases. Each case must be considered in the light of the policy but not so that the policy determines the outcome.
K2
CURRENT POSITION 5. The Authority’s policy for administering discretionary rate relief is now 17 years old
and as part of good practice should be reviewed to determine if they still reflect the corporate and community priorities.
6. The Policy and Resources Committee determined on 19 October 1989, that:
a) no ‘Top Up’ discretionary relief in addition to the 80% mandatory entitlement should be granted to charitable organisations, with the exception of eleven organisations (this is now 8) who would be disadvantaged by the new provisions;
b) the nine Lawn Tennis and Bowls Clubs which were currently receiving
discretionary relief be granted 75% from 1 April 1990 (of which 25% falls on the Council rather than the government)
c) the Director of Finance/Head of Financial Services be authorised to determine
new applications in accordance with the approved criteria and that officers were granted delegated powers to grant relief up to a value of £7,000.
d) Discretionary rate relief would be granted to qualifying organisations at 75%
with no organisation being able to achieve 100% relief. 7. Currently the Authority has awarded 75% discretionary rate relief to 27 organisations
with a current cost to the Authority of £75,000. Annex 1 contains a list of those organisations. Top Up relief is currently granted to 8 organisations with a cost to the Authority of £8,000. Annex 2 contains a list of those organisations.
8. The criteria currently used to award the discretionary rate relief is contained in Annex
3. CONCERNS RELATING TO CURRENT POSITION 9. The current ‘policy’ of restricting discretionary rate relief to 75% without the ability for
some organisations to qualify for 100% relief may be considered as fettering our discretion and too restrictive.
10. The current ‘policy’ of not granting ‘Top Up’ relief to any charitable organisation with
the exception of the remaining 8 organisations left from the 1989 Committee resolution may be considered as fettering our discretion and too restrictive.
11. The government has reminded Authorities that the operation of a blanket policy and
failure to take account of all the relevant information could be considered ultra vires and would risk legal challenge. The Government encourages Authorities to make the most constructive use of the discretionary regulations. They do not expect Authorities to adopt unduly restrictive policies. A recent ombudsman case found an Authority guilty of fettering its discretionary powers because its policies were too restrictive.
12. However the granting of relief is discretionary and the final decision in awarding relief
is entirely at the Authority’s discretion. The Local Authority must however, be able to
K3
demonstrate that they do not have fixed or unduly restrictive policies in place and that each case is considered individually.
PROPOSED 13. To expand the criteria for discretionary rate relief to include more emphasis on equal
opportunities and corporate priorities. Annex 4 contains the draft criteria. 14. To allow certain organisations to achieve 100% discretionary rate relief and the full
Top Up relief of 20%. The organisations that have been selected for both the full discretionary relief and the full top up relief are associations for the disabled. The organisations selected for a partial top up relief are Advice and Counselling Organisations and Youth Groups. These were selected on the basis of the priorities in the Community Plan namely health and social care, community safety and education and learning. Annex 5 sets out the relief currently granted and the proposals for discretionary and top up % amounts.
15. It is proposed to keep any amendments to broadly within the current budget of £83,000. The proposals outlined result in an increase in budget of approximately £3,000.
16. The level of discretionary relief granted by officers under delegated powers should be
increased to £15,000. 17. There are specific regulations relating to any changes the local authority makes in
relation to its ‘policy’ on discretionary rate relief. A reduction in discount may only take effect at the end of a financial year and at least one year’s notice must be given. As the criteria (Annex 4) has changed it is not known at this stage which organisations will be affected. Therefore it is proposed that the effective date for all changes relating to this policy is the 1st April 2008. All existing recipients of Discretionary Rate Relief would be sent the revised criteria by the end of March 2007 so that they are given one year’s notice of the change in criteria.
OPTIONS 18. The Authority could change the amount it spends on discretionary relief. Currently
there is a budget provision for relief of approximately £83,000. The proposals have increased the spend to approximately £86,000. Any higher expenditure would have to be funded by increased budget provision. This is not considered viable in the Authority’s current financial position.
19. The Authority could reduce the amount given to sports clubs to say 50% which would result in an approximate annual saving of £25,000. These organisations would then be faced with a higher rates bill. This may encourage sports clubs to register as a Community Amateur Sports Club which would then entitle them to 80% mandatory relief with no cost to the Authority. Not all sports clubs want to go down this route due to the criteria which they would be required to meet. Any reduction in discretionary relief for those organisations may affect the provision of that facility.
20. The Authority could revise the ‘Top Up’ relief for the remaining 8 organisations from the 1989 Committee decision. If ‘Top Up’ relief continues for those organisations this will be inconsistent with the proposed ‘Top Up’ percentages for the related categories.
K4
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS 21. The financial implications in respect of the proposals are set out in Annex 5. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS 22. Section 47 Local Government Finance Act 1988 provides for the discretionary relief
outlined in this report.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS 23. There are no environmental implications.
Background papers : none
Author of Report Mary Tam, 020 8547 5636; e-mail: mary.tam@rbk.Kingston.gov.uk
K5
ANNEX 1
DISCRETIONARY RATE RELIEF CURRENTLY GRANTED Organisation Amount of
discretionary relief
Cost to the Authority
Type of organisation S= sport R= recreation C = cultural
New Malden Tennis, Squash club 12096 3024 S Surbiton Racket and Fitness Club 9953 2488 S Chessington and Hook United Sports and Social club
3685 921 S
Chessington Bowling Club 284 71 S Hook and Southborough Bowling club
337 84 S
Chessington Lawn Tennis Club 600 150 S Thames Sailing Club 2630 657 S Tiffin Boys school & Kingston Rowing Club
7469 1867 S
Surbiton Pet Club 533 133 R Bowls Services (Tolworth) Ltd 10635 2658 S Malden Bowling Club 1526 381 S Colliers Wood United Football Club 1396 349 S Surbiton Croquet Club 1428 357 S Corinthian-Casuals Football Club 2744 686 S Manor Park Bowls Management Assoc
487 121 S
Minima Yacht Club 1591 397 S Coombe Wood Lawn Tennis Club Ltd
2403 600 S
Hook Swim School& Aqua Centre Ltd
2533 633 S
Kingston Innovation Centre (properties) Ltd
6495 1623 C
Trustees of Shiraz Mirza Charitable Trust
588 147
Canbury Community Trust 1087 271 Tolworth Gymnastic Club 10310 2577 Royal British Legion Surbiton Bowling Club
454 113 S
Dinton Field Trust 5520 1380 DC Leisure Management Ltd 49375 12343 S DC Leisure Management Ltd 91579 22894 S DC Leisure Management Ltd 66411 16602 S DC Leisure Management Ltd 7794 1948 S Total 301943 75485
K6
ANNEX 2 TOP UP DISCRETIONARY RATE RELIEF CURRENTLY GRANTED
Organisation Amount of relief Cost to the Authority – 75% of relief
Amount of top up granted %
Type of Organisation M = Medical RE = religious SH = Charity shop
The British Red Cross Society
1147 860 20 M
Princess Alice Hospice Trust Ltd
451 338 10 SH
Kingston and District Welcare Assoc
796 597 20 M
Malden Emergency First Aid Society
1017 762 20 M
Chessington Evangelical Church
5791 4343 20 RE
The St Johns Ambulance Assoc & Brigade
597 447 20 M
Kaleidoscope Project 298 223 10 M Princess Alice Hospice Trust Ltd
649 486 10 SH
TOTAL 10746 8059
K7
ANNEX 3 CURRENT CRITERIA FOR GRANTING DISCRETIONARY RATE RELIEF Membership should be open to all sections of the community and consistent with the principles of open access. Membership rates should not be set at such a high level as to exclude the general community. The benefits, facilities or services provided by the organisation must clearly benefit all, or an identifiable section or group, of the residents of the Royal Borough. Membership encouraged from particular groups of the community such as young people, women, older age groups, person with disabilities and ethnic minorities. Where there are significant bar receipts the main purpose of the organisation will be considered. (In sports clubs, for example, the balance between playing and non-playing members will provide a guide as to whether the main purpose of the club is sporting or social activities.)
K8
ANNEX 4 DISCRETIONARY RATE RELIEF - NEW CRITERIA PROPOSALS
Non profit making organisations and charities can claim discretionary rate relief. The award of this relief is a discretionary power available to the Council. There is a financial consideration to any relief awarded in that a proportion has to be met by Council Tax payers so any decision will take this into consideration. The decision of the Council is final but this does not affect the legal right to challenge a decision made by the Council through the Judicial Review process. Registered charities are entitled to 80% relief providing they are occupying premises for charitable purposes. Discretionary relief for charitable organisations, ‘Top Up’ relief, can be awarded up to a further 20%. Each case will be independently assessed however the Council has drawn up guidelines to ensure consistency and fairness. In general terms applications for ‘Top Up’ relief will encouraged from Associations for the Disabled, Advice and Counselling and Youth Organisations. For non profit making organisations to qualify for consideration they must be organisations whose main objectives are philanthropic, religious, concerned with education, social welfare, science, literature or the fine arts or a club, society or other organisation whose property is used for the purpose of recreation. The Council has drawn up guidelines/criteria to ensure consistency and fairness in its approach to awarding discretionary rate relief. These are detailed below. In addition the Council has drawn up a scale of relief for each type of organisation if the criteria are satisfied. These criteria are set out below:
1. Membership should be open to all sections of the community and consistent with the principles of open access. Consideration will be given to:
a. Whether the organisation recognises the diversity of people’s lifestyles, backgrounds and abilities and whether they have an equal opportunities policy. Organisations will be asked to supply a copy of their equal opportunities policy if they have one.
b. Are restrictions placed on membership which relate for example to ability in a particular sport or level of achievement? The organisation must be able to show the criteria by which membership is considered and demonstrate that this is consistent with the principle of open access.
c. Organisations will be required to specify any groups of individuals excluded from membership.
2. Is there a membership fee – if so these should not be set at such a high level as to
exclude the general community. Consideration will be given to: a. Whether there are any concessions to any class of member e.g. young, retired,
unemployed etc. b. Organisations will be asked to provide details of their fees/annual subscriptions
and these will be considered in regard to their general affordability in relation to the general community.
3. The benefits, facilities or services provided by the organisation must clearly benefit all,
or an identifiable section or group, of the residents of the Borough. Consideration will be given to:
K9
a. Whether the facilities are made available to people other than members of the organisation e.g. community groups, local residents etc.
b. Are there schemes for particular groups to develop their skills e.g. young people, disabled, etc in areas such as employment training, counselling etc.
c. Whether membership is drawn from people mainly resident in the Borough. This is important as part of any relief awarded has to be borne by Council taxpayers in the area.
4. Membership encouraged from particular groups of the community such as young
people, women, older age groups, person with disabilities and ethnic minorities or disadvantaged groups.
This refers to particular groups within the community which the Authority considers deserving of support. Examples might include youth groups and organisations supporting long-term unemployed or those with mental health problems or disabilities.
5. Whether the financial situation of the organisation justifies relief. Consideration will be given to:
a. If the organisation is financially supported by the Borough or by self-help schemes?
b. Whether the organisation would be able to continue if relief was not granted.
6. If the organisation runs a bar, it must be incidental to the main purpose of the organisation. Consideration will be given to:
a. Where there are significant bar receipts the main purpose of the organisation will be considered. In sports clubs, for example, the balance between playing and non-playing members will provide a guide as to whether the main purpose of the club is sporting or social activities.
b. The main purpose of the organisation – running a bar in itself will not be a reason for declining relief. A social club whose main interest is drawing local people together with similar interests will not necessarily be denied relief because of the existence of a bar. However a club that is primarily a commercial bar is likely to be excluded.
7. Whether the organisation is affiliated or involved at a local or national level with any organisations. Consideration will be given to:
a. Whether the organisation is involved at both a local and national level at developing its particular interest e.g. competitions, events and exhibitions.
b. Whether the organisation is part of a larger organisation nationally and how this benefits the local residents.
8. A sports club would not qualify for relief if payments were made to playing members. Each application for discretionary rate relief is considered on its own merits and the above criteria is used as guidance in administering that relief to ensure consistency and fairness.
K
10
AN
NEX
5
D
iscr
etio
nary
and
Top
up
relie
f cur
rent
cos
t with
pro
posa
ls in
clud
ing
keep
ing
all c
urre
nt T
op U
p re
lief c
ases
Prop
osed
C
urre
nt £
C
urre
nt £
Pr
opos
ed
Prop
osed
Pr
opos
ed £
C
omm
ents
on
prop
osal
s C
ateg
ory
Cur
rent
ly g
rant
ed
T =
top
up
M=
man
dato
ry- n
o co
st to
the
Aut
horit
y D
= d
iscr
etio
nary
Cos
t to
LA
Cur
rent
ly
25%
of D
iscr
an
d
75%
of T
op u
p
Dis
cret
iona
ry%
Top
Up%
C
ost t
o th
e A
utho
rity
T =
Top
up
D =
dis
cret
iona
ry
Ass
ocia
tions
for t
he
disa
bled
10
0 20
0
New
crit
eria
but
no
curre
nt
appl
ican
ts
Med
ical
/relie
f of s
uffe
ring
46
4,80
4 M
3,
855
T 28
91
T 0*
0
2891
T**
To
p up
gra
nted
to e
xist
ing
reci
pien
ts o
nly
Hou
sing
org
anis
atio
ns
4,25
3
M
0 0
0 0
New
crit
eria
but
no
curre
nt
appl
ican
ts
Adv
ice
and
coun
sellin
g 16
,540
M
0*
5 77
5 T
New
top
up re
lief g
rant
ed
Spo
rts c
lubs
29
3,24
0 D
22
,129
M
73
,310
D
75
0 73
310
D
No
chan
ge to
dis
cret
iona
ry
relie
f %
C
ultu
ral/r
elig
ious
5,
791
T 6,
495
D
60,7
49
M
4343
T
1623
D
75
0 43
43 T
**
2287
D
No
chan
ge to
dis
cret
iona
ry
relie
f %.
Top
up g
rant
ed to
exi
stin
g re
cipi
ents
onl
y
K
11
Pr
opos
ed
Cur
rent
£
Cur
rent
£
Prop
osed
Pr
opos
ed
Prop
osed
£
Com
men
ts o
n pr
opos
als
You
th o
rgan
isat
ions
41
,234
M
0
75%
5
1932
T
Org
anis
atio
ns in
this
gro
up
are
regi
ster
ed c
harit
ies
and
ther
efor
e ve
ry fe
w w
ill qu
alify
for d
iscr
etio
nary
re
lief.
New
Top
Up
relie
f gra
nted
.
Cha
rity
shop
s 1,
100
T
9,38
8 M
82
5 T
0*
0 82
5 T
**
No
chan
ge to
cur
rent
cr
iteria
To
p up
gra
nted
to e
xist
ing
reci
pien
ts o
nly
Edu
catio
nal/a
rts
1,49
4,43
7M
0 0
0 0
No
chan
ge to
cur
rent
cr
iteria
S
ocia
l/com
mun
ity/re
crea
tion
act
iviti
es (o
ther
than
sp
orts
)
1,12
1
D
350,
561
M
280
T 75
0
280
D**
N
o ch
ange
to c
urre
nt
crite
ria
Ass
ocia
tions
for e
x-se
rvic
e m
en/w
omen
25
,488
M
0
0 0
0 N
o ch
ange
to c
urre
nt
crite
ria
Tota
l
83,2
72
86,6
43
*
thes
e or
gani
satio
ns a
re u
sual
ly re
gist
ered
cha
ritie
s re
ceiv
ing
80%
man
dato
ry re
lief.
No
disc
retio
nary
relie
f wou
ld n
orm
ally
be
expe
cted
as
thes
e or
gani
satio
ns s
houl
d be
regi
ster
ed c
harit
ies.
**
ex
istin
g or
gani
satio
ns
APPENDIX L Executive 20 March 2007
COUNCIL TAX LOCAL DISCOUNTS Report by the Strategic Director of Finance Leader of the Council
Purpose
To advise Members of the powers to create local classes of discount and individual discounts under s13A of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 as amended by s76 of the Local Government Act 2003. To recommend a policy on local discounts for Council Tax.
Action proposed by the Leader of the Council: The Executive is requested to:
1. note that the Council has the power to reduce the amount of Council Tax payable either for a locally defined class or for individual cases;
2. delegate to the Strategic Director of Finance authority to consider certain requests for a local discount;
3. to agree to the proposals contained in this report set out in paragraphs 7 to 10 below. Reason for action proposed To ensure there is an administrative policy on local discounts, taking into account recent Ombudsman published reports.
BACKGROUND
1. The Local Government Act 2003 became effective on the 18th November 2003.
2. There were three major changes contained in the Act which allow authorities: a discretion to reduce the discounts applied in respect of second homes; to reduce the discounts for empty homes and the provision for a local discount.
3. The Authority took the opportunity of amending the discounts applied to second homes and empty homes. However it did not at that time draw up a policy or criteria for the administration of local discounts.
4. Other Councils in a similar position to us have been threatened with Judicial Review over their lack of a policy for local discounts and therefore it is considered necessary for the Council to adopt such a policy.
5. Billing Authorities now have the power to reduce the amount of council tax payable in respect of any dwelling in their area – a local discount. The discount can be up to 100% and can apply to either an individual or class of dwelling. The Billing Authority will fund completely any locally defined discount which they create and the loss cannot be passed on to precepting authorities. This discretion allows each authority to take
L2
account of local situations or emergencies. It also allows cases of hardship to be considered which it could not do previously.
6. Authorities may exercise this power in individual cases (eg individual hardship, in cases where the taxpayer is not eligible for council tax benefit or where the dwelling is not their sole or main residence) or they may determine classes/groups in which liability is to be reduced.
PROPOSAL
7. A policy for local discounts should act in a way which does not ‘fetter’ the proper exercise of discretion. The policy must not eliminate the Authority’s consideration of an application or of a class of applicants. A policy however is required as a means of securing a consistent approach to individual cases, each of which is likely to differ from others. Each case must be considered, therefore, in the light of the policy but not so that the policy determines the outcome.
8. It is necessary to establish internal arrangements to deal with requests for a local discount. Such arrangements should identify who will consider the request and how the decision will be made taking into account the relevant law and the proper exercise of the discretion.
9. Under normal circumstances Council Tax is only written off as a bad debt if the tax payer has absconded. A local discount is entirely funded by the Authority’s Council Tax payers and it is effectively a power to write off the charge, it therefore should be limited in its application.
10. Local discounts would only be given in very exceptional circumstances. A policy is attached at Annex 1 which sets out the proposals to administer local discounts. Classes of discounts would be set by the Executive as and when considered appropriate.
OPTIONS
11. Members may consider expanding the policy but need to be mindful that this will have a detrimental affect on the Authority’s finances. This should be considered as a scheme to pick up the very few exceptional cases rather than running an extended second ‘council tax benefit scheme’ to help residents financially. Any extension to local discounts over and above what is proposed in this report will require additional budgets with the cost falling on the remaining Council Tax payers.
12. The Authority has ascertained that the majority of the London Authorities have or are drawing up a similar ‘exceptional hardship ’ criteria without specifying actual details of the type of hardship. The reason for this is that the nature of exceptional hardship is varied and individual. Therefore by being too specific about criteria may be considered as fettering our discretion by being too restrictive.
13. To introduce a class of discount e.g. reduced Council Tax for pensioners, would mean higher Council Tax for everyone else in the borough. In addition there would be an added cost in administering a separate discount scheme which again would fall on the local tax payer. Very few council’s have introduced a separate class of discounts.
L3
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
14. Local discounts will be funded entirely locally. There will, therefore, be a requirement for the billing authority to transfer from its general fund to its collection fund the amount by which the Council Tax has been reduced by local discounts. It is anticipated that, due to the infrequent use of this provision, no separate budget provision is required. Normal budget monitoring would keep under review the level of expenditure incurred.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
15. Section 13a local discounts provide for the discretion outlined in this report. Failure to have a mechanism for considering requests for a local discount could make the Authority liable to judicial review.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS 15. There are no environmental implications. Background papers : none Author - Mary Tam, 020 8547 5636; e-mail: mary.tam@rbk.Kingston.gov.uk
L4
ANNEX 1
DISCRETIONARY LOCAL DISCOUNTS SECTION 13A LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE ACT 1992
1. Aim 2. The aim of this document is to set out the circumstances in which a discretionary local
discount may be awarded together with a method of authorising discounts. 3. The aim of discretionary local discount is to grant relief towards the council tax
payable by a claimant who is suffering hardship. 4. This document sets out criteria to use for deciding when a local discretionary discount
should be granted for individuals and classes of people or property. 5. The criteria are not prescriptive and are aimed to guide Officers and Members in
making individual decisions in a fair and consistent manner. 6. Full consideration of any special circumstances of each case should be undertaken in
conjunction with the guidance contained here, so as to determine whether there are exceptional reasons which justify a decision more favourable to the individual claimant.
7. The guidelines contained below must not be used in a way that prevents the proper
consideration of any exceptional circumstances. 8. The methodology for authorising local discounts is designed to ensure that decisions
are properly recorded and evidenced. Internal check is a feature of the authorisation process to avoid decisions being made by a single individual.
9. Receipt of an application for relief will not negate in any way the taxpayer’s
responsibility to pay the council tax as demanded. 10. Individual Discounts 11. The granting of local discounts is wholly discretionary; the only requirement being that
the Council must consider every case on its merits. Guidance to officers exercising this discretion is that reduction or remission of council tax on grounds of hardship should be the exception rather than the rule.
12. Definition of hardship which can be considered for a local discount:
a) the taxpayer is able to satisfy the billing authority that they are not able to meet their full council tax liability or part of their liability.
b) the taxpayer is able to demonstrate that all reasonable steps have been taken
to meet their full council tax liability including applications for alternative lines of credit and benefit
c) the taxpayer can prove that the current circumstances are unlikely to improve in the following 12 months making payment of the council tax impossible.
L5
d) the taxpayer has no visible assets, does not own property, is not in employment and has no other funding except for that available through public funds
e) enforced payment of their full council tax liability would result in severe hardship as defined by insufficient money being available for basic needs such as food or medical prescriptions.
13. A written application is required from the taxpayer in each case for each financial year with a copy of:
a) their income and expenditure;
b) evidence to support their claim. 14. Sufficient information must be obtained to be aware of the taxpayer’s circumstances
especially those of a financial nature both for the current situation and the situation when the Council Tax was payable.
15. Circumstances surrounding the taxpayer’s age, health, finances and parental or filial
responsibility should be considered in each case. This may involve requests for supporting information from third parties.
16. Other criteria can be taken into account provided there is a direct relationship between
the criterion and the payment of Council Tax. 17. Other ways of reducing or remitting the Council Tax must be considered and a
discretionary discount should not be given where other reductions are available.
18. Discounts should not be granted where the amount is outstanding as a result of wilful refusal or culpable neglect on the part of the taxpayer.
19. Relief is not to be granted in order to prevent recovery action being instigated by the
Council or to stop bankruptcy or committal proceedings commenced by the Council or any other body.
20. Priority should be given to cases where the taxpayer has made some payments. 21. All awards must be within the terms of the regulations. 22. Class Defined discounts 23. A written request is required. 24. Requests should be encouraged from taxpayers who may benefit from such a
discount. 25. The effect on other taxpayers, financial or otherwise must be taken into account. 26. Priority should be given to classes which are naturally time limited by circumstances. 27. All awards must be within the terms of the regulations. 28. Priority should be given to situations that are outside the taxpayer’s control. 29. Discounts should not be considered where other reductions are available.
L6
30. Authorisation Process 31. Individual discounts
a) £0 to £1,000 – A written report is required from the Revenue Manager recommending the discount. The recommendation is considered by the Head of Revenue and Benefit Services. Appeals will be considered by the Head of Financial Services.
b) Over £1,000 to £5,000 - A written report is required from the Revenue Manager
recommending the discount and counter signed by the Head of Revenue and Benefit Services and considered by the Head of Financial Services. Appeals will be considered by the Strategic Director of Finance.
c) Over £5,000 - A written report should be submitted to the Strategic Director of
Finance for consideration. Appeals will be considered by the Executive.
d) Over £10,000 - A written report should be submitted to the Executive for consideration. Appeals will be resubmitted to the Executive.
32. Class Defined discounts 33. A written report is submitted to the Executive recommending the classes of discount to
be implemented. 34. Appeal Process 35. Appeals may only be made by the original applicant. An appellant may appoint an
agent to act on their behalf and in such cases the Council will require written authorisation from the appellant before dealing with their agent.
36. Applicants must make an appeal within four weeks of the issue of the letter notifying
them of the Council’s decision. Appeals must be made in writing and must give the reasons why it is believed the decision should be amended. New or additional information may be included, but only if it is relevant to the decision making process.
37. An appeal will be considered by a senior officer who was not involved in the original
decision. 38. The officer deciding the appeal will be subject to the same guidance as above. 39. Each appeal will be considered individually on its merit. 40. All decisions must be in accordance with the regulations. 41. The outcome of the appeal will be final. Submitting an appeal does not affect the
appellant’s legal rights to challenge a decision made by the Council through the Judicial Review process.
APPENDIX MExecutive, 20 March 2007
LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION FUNDING (LIP) 2007- 2008 ALLOCATION OF BIDS Report by the Strategic Director of Environmental Services Executive Member for Transportation and Sustainable Development
Purpose The purpose of this report is to seek the Executive’s approval of the allocation of the Local Implementation Plan (LIP) settlement for 2007 –2008 for works in the Neighbourhoods and Borough-wide. Action proposed by the Executive Member for Transportation and Sustainable Development: The Executive is requested to: approve the allocation of the LIP settlement for 2007 – 2008 for works in the Neighbourhoods and Borough-wide as detailed in Annex 1. Reason for action proposed To allocate funding for the design and implementation of the Neighbourhood and Borough-wide traffic, transportation and road safety schemes. BACKGROUND
1. The Executive at its meeting of 4 July, 2006 approved the Council’s LIP funding and reporting for 2007 – 2008 for submission to Transport for London (TfL). The LIP funding and reporting was delivered to TfL on July 21, 2006.
2. On December 19, 2006, the Mayor for London allocated £3.561m for the 2007 – 2008 LIP settlement to the Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames as shown in TABLE 1 below. The proportion of allocation/bid for 2007 – 2008 i.e. (£3561k/£6198.90k) (57%) was better than 2006 – 2007 i.e. (£3978.3k/£8247.34k) (48%) as shown in TABLE 2 below. The main transport areas covered by this funding are principal road maintenance and bridge strengthening, road safety, walking and cycling, bus stop accessibility, local bus priority schemes, town centre, school travel plan, work travel plan and travel awareness, streets-for-people and local area accessibility.
3. The LIP settlement for the London Authorities for 2007 – 2008 is £160m. This allocation exceeds the record of £159m commitment made by the Mayor in 2006. The LIP funding forms an important component of the TfL investment programme.
4. The LIP funding supports a range of local transport improvements during the next financial year including cycling, walking, school travel plan, work travel plan and travel awareness, road safety, improvement to town centres and road maintenance. The spending in London Boroughs will improve local transport and make neighbourhoods across the capital safer, cleaner, greener and more pleasant.
M2
5. The highlights of the 2007 – 2008 LIP allocations London-wide include: (a) Schemes to improve quality, safety and accessibility of local streets and town
centres. (b) Allocations for the maintenance of principal roads, assessment and strengthening
of bridges, area based schemes (town centres, streets-for-people and station access), road safety and bus priority schemes accounted for around 60% of the total settlement.
TABLE 1
LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN 2007 -2008 BID & ALLOCATION SUMMARY
TRANSPORT HEADING BID (£k) ALLOCATION (£k)
Principal Road Maintenance 804.00 296.00
Bridge Assessment & Strengthening 1059.00 159.00
Local Safety Scheme 380.00 260.00
20mph Zones 740.00 345.00
Education, Training & Publicity 51.50 70.00
Walking 724.50 230.00
Cycling 715.00 720.00
Bus Stop Accessibility 95.00 95.00
Local Bus Priority 145.00 200.00
Area Based Schemes (Town Centres, Street-for-People & Station Access)
340.00 435.00
School Travel Plans 332.90 308.00
Work Travel Plans 50.00 43.00
Travel Awareness 160.00 150.00
Freight 40.00 20.00
Local Area Accessibility 562.00 230.00
Total 6198.90 3561.00
M3
6. Comparison of yearly allocation and bid
TABLE 2
COMPARISON OF YEARLY ALLOCATION AND BID
2004 - 2005 2005 - 2006 2006 - 2007 2007 - 2008
Allocation (£k) 5583.00 3494.00 3978.30 3561.00
Bid (£k) 15976.50 14594.80 8247.34 6198.90
Allocation/Bid ratio (%) 35 24 48 57
7. The Neighbourhood Committees considered the LIP settlement for 2007 – 2008 at their meetings in February 2007. This report seeks the Executive’s decision to allocate the LIP settlement for 2007 – 2008 for the implementation of the approved Borough-wide and Neighbourhood schemes as indicated in Annex 1. In considering the Borough-wide and Neighbourhoods’ allocation, it should be noted that these schemes have to be completed and all the funds used by the end of the financial year.
8. TfL deals with principal road maintenance slightly differently in that they require the proposed schemes to be based entirely on UKpms condition ratings. This does not allow for Neighbourhood considerations. It should also be noted that TfL has again not allocated any money for the maintenance of non-principal roads.
COMMITTEE RESOLUTIONS 9. At the Kingston Town Neighbourhood Committee meeting on February 7, 2007.
Members agreed their allocation from LIP settlement as set out in Annex 1 but they commented that, as in previous years, Tudor Drive had not received any funding.
10. The Surbiton Neighbourhood Committee and the South of the Borough Committee
meetings were held on February 8, 2007 and February 14, 2007 respectively. Members of these Neighbourhoods agreed their allocations from LIP settlement as set out in Annex 1.
11. The Maldens and Coombe Neighbourhood Committee meeting was held on February
15, 2007. Members resolved that the Executive be requested to approve the allocation of the Authority’s LIP settlement for works in the Neighbourhood as shown at Annex 1 to the report, but to note the following concerns of the Committee: (a) that an enquiry should be submitted to TfL as to whether the £45,000 for the A2043 Malden Road/ Plough Parade bus priority measures could be allocated to the Elm Path Walking Scheme, given that only £15,000 had been allocated to the Neighbourhood for (borough-wide) ‘walking’ schemes. (b) that if funding (ref paragraphs 8-10* of the report) is reassigned by the LCN+ Project Manager, the schemes to which the funding is transferred should be submitted to the Committee for approval. [*The text from paragraphs 8-10 of that report is reproduced in Annex 2 to this report.]
M4
OFFICERS’ COMMENTS 12. The Head of Environment and Sustainability has advised as follows in relation to
the Committee’s comments in paragraph 11 above: “Note on (a) 13. The funding for the bus priority scheme at A2043 Malden Road / Plough Parade
was awarded from the TfL Bus Priority Transport Programme in respect of the sub-regional London Bus Priority Network Partnership Funding proposal (made by London Borough of Bromley on behalf of all London Boroughs). This Bus Priority Transport Programme funding is "ring-fenced" separate from the Borough’s individual LIP submissions.
If this scheme is not to be progressed and the funding is surrendered, it will return to TfL Bus Priority. It may be that the Borough could make an additional in year bid for funding under the LIP walking category, but it is highly unlikely that there will be any facility for TfL to switch funding between these funding groups.
Note to (a) 14. The funding for the LCN+ cycling schemes referred to in paragraphs 8-10 of the
report is awarded from the London Cycle Network+ Transport Programme in respect of the sub-regional LCN+ Partnership Funding Proposal (made by London Borough of Camden on behalf of all London Boroughs). This LCN+Transport Programme funding is "ring-fenced" separate from the Borough’s individual LIP submissions.
Application is being made to the LCN+ Project Manager to make the variations in funding to alternative schemes as set out in the report. It is likely that these variations will be approved. Reports on proposals for the alternative schemes would be submitted to the appropriate Neighbourhood Committees as soon as possible to progress the schemes within year."
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS 15. The implementation of schemes under the broad transport headlines will improve
safety and facilities for walking, cycling and public transport as outlined in the Mayor’s transport strategy and they will have beneficial impact on the environment. The environmental implications of the individual schemes will be presented to the relevant Neighbourhood Committees when considering the detail of each scheme.
NETWORK IMPLICATIONS
16. This report has no direct implication on Traffic Management Act 2004. However the LIP proposals, which are likely to affect the Strategic Road Network, will be communicated to this Council’s Traffic Manager for the notification procedure to start on time.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
17. The Executive’s decision has no direct implications on the revenue or capital resources of the Authority. Funding of the individual schemes will be provided by
M5
the LIP settlement for 2007 – 2008. The settlement will be paid in the form of a grant and will only be available to the Authority, if the work is carried out within the financial year.
BACKGROUND PAPERS held by Fred Amoasi 020 8547 5962 author of the report: - 1. LIP Funding and Reporting submission 2007 - 2008 – July 2006. 2. Executive Report – July 4, 2006. 3. Neighbourhood Committee Reports – February, 2007. 4. LIP Funding – December, 2006
M6
AN
NEX
1
NEI
GH
BO
UR
HO
OD
S A
ND
BO
RO
UG
H-W
IDE
ALL
OC
ATI
ON
S A
ND
BID
S FO
R 2
007
– 20
08 (£
k)
(BID
FIG
UR
ES
IN IT
ALI
CS
)
TRA
NSP
OR
T H
EAD
ING
LI
P B
ID P
RO
POSA
LS
BO
RO
UG
H –
W
IDE
/ ST
RA
TEG
IC
CR
OSS
-N
EIG
HB
OU
RH
OO
D
KIN
GST
ON
TO
WN
M
ALD
ENS
AN
D
CO
OM
BE
SOU
TH O
F TH
E B
OR
OU
GH
SUR
BIT
ON
TO
TAL
Prin
cipa
l R
oad
Mai
nten
ance
P
rinci
pal r
oad
mai
nten
ance
29
6
(8
04)
29
6
(804
)
Non
-Prin
cipa
l R
oad
Mai
nten
ance
N
on-p
rinci
pal r
oad
mai
nten
ance
.
Brid
ge
Stre
ngth
enin
g B
ridge
stre
ngth
enin
g 15
9
(
1059
)
159
(10
59)
Loca
l Saf
ety
Sche
mes
Pen
rhyn
Roa
d
75
(75)
75
(
75)
Lond
on R
oad
– Q
ueen
Eliz
abet
h R
oad
to C
oom
be R
oad
80
(60
)
80
(
60)
Que
en E
lizab
eth
Roa
d
75
(75
)
75
(
75)
Surb
iton
and
Sout
h of
the
Bor
ough
A24
0 E
wel
l Roa
d / P
rince
s A
venu
e / E
lgar
Ave
nue
junc
tion
30
(30
)
30
(30
)
Surb
iton
and
Sout
h of
the
Bor
ough
Ew
ell R
oad
/ Kin
g C
harle
s R
oad
/ Len
elby
Roa
d ju
nctio
n
0
(60)
0
(6
0)
Mal
den
Roa
d / B
lake
s La
ne
0
(2
0)
0
(20)
M7
S
outh
Lan
e / S
heep
hous
e W
ay ro
unda
bout
0
(40)
0
(4
0)
20 m
ph Z
ones
V
aria
ble
limits
out
side
Bor
ough
Sch
ools
(Tiff
in G
irls
&
Fern
hill)
0
(20)
0
(20)
Var
iabl
e lim
its o
utsi
de B
orou
gh S
choo
ls (T
iffin
Boy
s &
K
ings
ton
Gra
mm
ar)
0
(4
0)
0
(4
0)
Var
iabl
e lim
its o
utsi
de B
orou
gh S
choo
ls (T
he M
ount
P
rimar
y S
choo
l)
0
(15)
0
(15)
Spe
ed li
mits
in re
side
ntia
l roa
ds –
Tud
or
100
(100
)
100
(1
00)
Spe
ed li
mits
in re
side
ntia
l roa
ds –
Kin
gsto
n R
iver
side
R
oads
Are
a
60
(6
0)
60
(60
)
Kin
gsto
n an
d Su
rbito
n
Low
er M
arsh
Lan
e
0
(1
2.5)
0
(12.
5)
0
(25)
Var
iabl
e sp
eed
limits
out
side
St M
atth
ews
Sch
ool
0
(3
0)
0
(30)
Var
iabl
e sp
eed
limits
out
side
Shr
ewsb
ury
Hou
se S
choo
l
0
(50)
0
(5
0)
War
ren
Driv
e N
orth
0
(50)
0
(5
0)
Par
k R
oad
/ Ber
ryla
nds
Roa
d
0
(25)
0
(2
5)
The
Mal
l and
Sur
bito
n R
iver
side
Roa
ds A
rea
10
0
(100
) 10
0
(100
)
Ash
by /
Filb
y
0
(50)
0
(50)
Roe
buck
Roa
d A
rea
0
(5
0)
0
(5
0)
C
hurc
h R
oad
Rev
iew
45
(
45)
45
(
45)
E
nhan
cem
ents
to e
xist
ing
20 m
ph s
chem
es –
Man
or
Driv
e, M
ount
Ple
asan
t
40
(
40)
40
(
40)
M8
S
outh
Lan
e
£120
k bi
d su
ppor
ted
by M
alde
ns &
Coo
mbe
N
eigh
bour
hood
Com
mitt
ee w
ill b
e m
ade
in tw
o pa
rts.
Th
ere
is £
20k
in 2
007/
08 a
nd £
100k
in 2
008/
09.
0
(2
0)
0
(20)
W
estb
ury
Roa
d ju
nctio
n
£120
k bi
d su
ppor
ted
by M
alde
ns &
Coo
mbe
N
eigh
bour
hood
Com
mitt
ee w
ill b
e m
ade
in tw
o pa
rts.
Th
ere
is £
20k
in 2
007/
08 a
nd £
100k
in 2
008/
09’.
0
(2
0)
0
(20)
Educ
atio
n,
Trai
ning
and
Pu
blic
ity
Occ
upat
iona
l Roa
d R
isk
0
(10
)
0
(10)
Stu
dent
Cou
ncil
for R
oad
Saf
ety
15
(15)
15
(
15)
Rea
chin
g Yo
ung
Driv
ers
5
(5
)
5
(5)
Rea
chin
g ha
rd to
reac
h gr
oup
2
(2
)
2
(2)
Thea
tre in
edu
catio
n fo
r prim
ary
scho
ols
15
(15)
15
(
15)
Mul
ti-lin
gual
leaf
lets
e.g
. sea
t bel
ts /
in-c
ar s
afet
y fo
r et
hnic
min
ority
0
(2
.5)
0
(2.
5)
O
ver 6
0’s
driv
ing
adva
ntag
e ed
ucat
ion
0
(2
)
0
(2)
P
ower
ed 2
Whe
eler
s 33
(0)
33
(0
)
Wal
king
Nor
bito
n E
stat
e (F
easi
bilit
y S
tudy
)
0
(
10)
0
(1
0)
Mod
erni
satio
n of
ATS
– W
heat
field
Way
/Fai
rfiel
d N
orth
0
(75)
0
(75)
Feas
ibili
ty s
tudy
and
impl
emen
tatio
n of
ped
estri
an
phas
ing
at F
airfi
eld
Wes
t/Kni
ght P
ark,
the
Bitt
oms/
Pen
rhyn
Roa
d an
d S
ury
Bas
in/S
even
Kin
gs W
ay
0
(2
0)
0
(2
0)
A24
0 E
wel
l Roa
d / D
itton
Roa
d
0
(3
0)
0
(30)
Surb
iton
and
Sout
h of
the
Bor
ough
Red
Lio
n R
oad
0
(100
)
0
(100
)
M9
Surb
iton
and
Sout
h of
the
Bor
ough
Tolw
orth
Bro
adw
ay -
new
cro
ssin
g an
d re
mov
al o
f su
bway
10
0
(100
)
10
0
(100
)
Elm
Pat
h
0
(50)
0
(5
0)
Eag
le w
harf
river
side
ope
n sp
ace
100
(1
82.5
)
100
(182
.5)
Tham
es s
ide
foot
way
and
ope
n sp
ace
15
(15
)
15
(
15)
Hog
smill
val
ley
wal
k st
rate
gy
0
(51)
0
(51)
Bor
ough
wal
king
rout
e su
rvey
s an
d D
DA
acc
essi
bilit
y im
prov
emen
ts
15
(40)
15
(
40)
Cyc
ling
(Non
-LC
N+)
Cyc
ling
non
LCN
+ -L
CN
Rou
te 4
Can
bury
Gar
dens
–
light
ing
of u
nseg
rega
ted
shar
ed c
ycle
and
ped
estri
an
path
.
25
(25
)
25
(
25)
Cyc
ling
non
LCN
+ in
crea
sed
prov
isio
n of
sec
ure
off s
treet
se
cure
cyc
le p
arki
ng –
Kin
gsto
n To
wn
Cen
tre.
20
(100
)
20
(1
00)
Bor
ough
-wid
e
C
ycle
Tra
inin
g
100
(1
00)
10
0
(100
)
Bor
ough
-wid
e
C
yclin
g M
onito
ring
0
(
10)
0
(1
0)
Bor
ough
-wid
e
C
yclin
g M
aint
enan
ce –
Mai
nten
ance
of n
on L
CN
+ ro
utes
0
(
20)
0
(2
0)
Kin
gsto
n an
d M
alde
ns &
Coo
mbe
LC
N+
Link
121
- R
oute
impr
ovem
ents
ent
ire li
nk.
Feas
ibili
ty a
nd d
esig
n sc
hem
es id
entif
ied
by C
RIS
P s
tudy
(li
nk 1
21).
20
(20
)
20
(20
)
Kin
gsto
n an
d M
alde
ns &
Coo
mbe
LC
N+
Link
122
– R
oute
impr
ovem
ents
ent
ire li
nk.
Impl
emen
tatio
n of
sch
emes
des
igne
d in
200
6 –
2007
. In
clud
es s
ide
road
ent
ry tr
eatm
ents
, jun
ctio
n tre
atm
ents
, an
d re
view
tow
n ce
ntre
and
Kin
gsto
n S
tatio
n ac
cess
ibili
ty.
75
(75
)
75
(75
)
M10
LCN
+ Li
nk 1
23 –
A30
7 H
igh
Stre
et /
Kin
gsto
n H
all R
oad
impr
ovem
ents
to e
xist
ing
roun
dabo
ut. C
ompl
etio
n of
sc
hem
e fro
m 2
006
– 20
07.
20
(50
)
20
(
50)
LCN
+ S
pur f
rom
Lin
k 12
3 –
Kin
gsto
n H
all R
oad
betw
een
A30
7 H
igh
Stre
et a
nd K
ings
ton
Col
lege
. Com
plet
ion
of
sche
me
from
200
6 –
2007
.
20
(20
)
20
(
20)
Kin
gsto
n, S
urbi
ton
and
Sout
h of
the
Bor
ough
LCN
+ Li
nk 1
23 –
Rou
te im
prov
emen
ts e
ntire
link
. Des
ign,
co
nsul
tatio
n &
impl
emen
tatio
n of
mea
sure
s fro
m C
RIS
P
stud
y fo
r Lin
k 12
3. In
clud
es s
igni
ng, s
ide
road
ent
ry
treat
men
ts, j
unct
ion
treat
men
ts, a
nd re
view
acc
ess
to
tow
n ce
ntre
.
30
(30
)
30
(30
)
Kin
gsto
n an
d M
alde
n &
Coo
mbe
LCN
+ Li
nk 1
24 –
Rou
te im
prov
emen
ts e
ntire
link
. S
chem
es id
entif
ied
from
CR
ISP
stu
dy (e
ntire
link
).
20
(20
)
20
(20
)
Kin
gsto
n an
d Su
rbito
n
LCN
+ Li
nk 1
26 –
Rou
te im
prov
emen
ts e
ntire
link
(s
chem
es id
entif
ied
from
par
t of C
RIS
P s
tudy
link
12
2,12
3,12
6,16
3). D
esig
n, c
onsu
ltatio
n &
Impl
emen
tatio
n m
easu
res
iden
tifie
d fro
m C
RIS
P S
tudy
.
50
(30
)
50
(30
)
Mal
dens
& C
oom
be a
nd S
urbi
ton
C
yclin
g no
n LC
N+
Kno
llmea
d/S
heep
hous
e W
ay H
ogsm
ill
Cyc
le B
ridge
feas
ibili
ty
0
(1
5)
0
(15)
C
yclin
g LC
N+
She
epho
use
way
. Fea
sibi
lity
for
segr
egat
ed c
ycle
trac
k an
d re
vise
d pa
rkin
g ar
rang
emen
t to
impr
ove
cycl
ing
to n
earb
y sc
hool
s an
d st
atio
n
0
(2
0)
0
(20)
Su
rbito
n an
d So
uth
of th
e B
orou
gh
C
yclin
g no
n LC
N+
Ew
ell R
oad/
Kin
g C
harle
s R
oad/
Red
Li
on R
oad
– co
ntrib
utio
n to
war
ds im
prov
ed c
ycle
cro
ssin
g fa
cilit
ies
0
(2
0)
0
(20)
Su
rbito
n an
d So
uth
of th
e B
orou
gh
LC
N+
Link
123
– A
243
Hoo
k R
oad
sout
h of
junc
tion
with
K
ings
dow
ne R
d, D
itton
Roa
d, C
otte
rill R
oad,
Tho
rnhi
ll A
venu
e, K
ent W
ay, A
3 su
bway
, Ful
lers
Way
Sou
th,
Hun
ters
Roa
d, G
osbu
ry H
ill, E
lm R
oad
to ju
nctio
n w
ith
A24
3 H
ook
Rd.
Fea
sibi
lity
and
desi
gn o
f sch
emes
id
entif
ied
by C
RIS
P L
ink
123
stud
y.
20
(20
)
20
(20
)
M11
LC
N+
Link
123
– A
243
Upp
er B
right
on R
oad
junc
tion
with
W
alpo
le R
d &
Lov
elac
e R
d. T
ouca
n cr
ossi
ng, b
ased
on
desi
gn fr
om 2
006
– 20
07
70
(70
) 70
(70
)
C
yclin
g no
n LC
N+
Tolw
orth
Cou
rt Fa
rm/F
ootp
ath
15 –
co
mpl
etio
n of
200
6/7
sche
me
15
(15
)
15
(
15)
C
yclin
g no
n LC
N+
Brid
ge R
oad/
Nor
th P
arad
e /M
arst
on
Ave
nue
– co
ntrib
utio
n to
war
ds im
prov
ed c
ycle
cro
ssin
g fa
cilit
ies
15
(15
)
15
(
15)
C
yclin
g no
n LC
N+
Jubi
lee
Way
– c
ompl
etio
n of
feas
ibili
ty
stud
y fo
r seg
rega
ted
cycl
e ro
ute
star
ted
in 2
006
– 20
07
0
(1
0)
0
(1
0)
C
yclin
g no
n LC
N+
A20
43 M
alde
n R
oad
betw
een
Foun
tain
R
ound
abou
t and
A3
Kin
gsto
n by
pass
– c
ycle
faci
lity
feas
ibili
ty s
tudy
.
0
(1
0)
0
(10)
LC
N+
Link
163
– R
oute
impr
ovem
ents
ent
ire li
nk. G
reen
La
ne /
Win
dsor
Ave
nue
treat
men
t to
impr
ove
junc
tion
acce
ss to
and
from
cyc
le tr
ack.
50
(50
)
50
(50
)
LC
N+
Link
124
– A
2043
Kin
gsto
n R
oad/
B28
2 B
urlin
gton
R
oad
exte
nsio
n of
LC
N+
betw
een
Elm
Roa
d an
d A
3/B
urlin
gton
75
(0
)
75
(0
)
LC
N+
Link
122
– A
2043
Mal
den
Roa
d, b
etw
een
Mal
den
Gre
en A
venu
e/Fo
rest
Sid
e an
d W
orce
ster
Par
k S
tatio
n
25
(0)
25
(0)
LC
N+
Link
121
– A
308
Kin
gsto
n H
ill T
ouca
n by
ent
ranc
e to
Kin
gsto
n U
nive
rsity
– K
ings
ton
Hill
Cam
pus
70
(0
)
70
(0
)
Bus
Sto
p A
cces
sibi
lity
K
ings
ton
and
Surb
iton
To
intro
duce
bus
sto
p ac
cess
ibili
ty im
prov
emen
ts o
n va
rious
rout
es. R
oute
s K
1 &
K4
Vill
iers
Roa
d A
rea
55
(55
)
55
(55
)
To
intro
duce
bus
sto
p ac
cess
ibili
ty im
prov
emen
ts o
n va
rious
rout
es. R
oute
371
Par
k R
oad
25
(25
)
25
(
25)
To
intro
duce
bus
sto
p ac
cess
ibili
ty im
prov
emen
ts o
n va
rious
rout
es. K
ings
ton
Tow
n C
entre
Rev
iew
of e
xist
ing.
5
(5)
5
(5)
To
intro
duce
bus
sto
p ac
cess
ibili
ty im
prov
emen
ts o
n va
rious
rout
es. R
oute
65
Rev
iew
5
(5)
5
(5)
M12
K
ings
ton
and
Mal
dens
& C
oom
be
To in
trodu
ce b
us s
top
acce
ssib
ility
impr
ovem
ents
on
vario
us ro
utes
. Rou
te13
1 R
evie
w
5
(
5)
5
(5)
Loca
l Bus
Pr
iorit
y M
easu
res
Ric
hmon
d R
oad
Bus
Lan
e -
exte
nded
from
pea
k ho
urs
to 7
am –
7pm
25
(
25)
25
(25
)
Woo
d S
treet
and
Cla
renc
e S
treet
– b
us o
nly
sect
ion.
R
oad
spac
e al
loca
tion
and
bus
stop
impr
ovem
ents
. Bid
fo
r fea
sibi
lity
wor
k an
d st
atut
ory
unde
rtake
rs e
quip
men
t in
vest
igat
ion
in 2
007/
08
10
(10
)
10
(
10)
A30
8 Lo
ndon
Roa
d / A
lber
t Roa
d ju
nctio
n im
prov
emen
ts.
New
traf
fic s
igna
ls w
ith S
VD
bus
prio
rity
10
(10
)
10
(
10)
Bus
stu
dy to
impr
ove
bus
serv
ice
betw
een
Kin
gsto
n an
d S
urbi
ton
and
bus
term
inus
faci
litie
s in
Kin
gsto
n To
wn
cent
re. I
ntro
duce
bus
lane
s be
twee
n S
urbi
ton
Sta
tion
and
Kin
gsto
n To
wn
cent
re. (
, Map
le R
oad
/ Sur
bito
n C
resc
ent
/ Sur
bito
n tri
angl
e). B
id fo
r fea
sibi
lity
wor
k an
d st
atut
ory
unde
rtake
rs e
quip
men
t inv
estig
atio
n in
200
7/08
10
(10
)
10
(
10)
A24
3 B
right
on R
oad
/ Vic
toria
Roa
d –
To c
ompl
ete
the
junc
tion
impr
ovem
ent s
tudy
and
det
ail d
esig
n. B
id fo
r fe
asib
ility
wor
k an
d st
atut
ory
unde
rtake
rs e
quip
men
t in
vest
igat
ion
in 2
007/
08
40
(10
) 40
(10
)
Cox
Lan
e, C
hess
ingt
on (N
ew b
us g
ate
cam
eras
)
50
(
50)
50
(50
)
A20
43 K
ings
ton
Roa
d / S
t Joh
ns R
oad.
Pro
pose
d si
gnal
isat
ion
of ju
nctio
n w
ith b
us p
riorit
y. B
id fo
r fea
sibi
lity
wor
k an
d st
atut
ory
unde
rtake
rs’ e
quip
men
t inv
estig
atio
n in
200
7/08
. Thi
s w
ould
be
com
plem
enta
ry to
a fe
asib
ility
st
udy
to b
e co
mm
issi
oned
in 2
007/
08 fr
om a
LB
PN
re
tain
ed c
onsu
ltant
(and
, sub
ject
to C
omm
ittee
app
rova
l of
the
initi
al re
sults
, inc
ludi
ng c
onsu
ltatio
n an
d ou
tline
de
taile
d de
sign
pla
ns a
s ap
prop
riate
). T
he s
tudy
wor
k w
ould
be
fund
ed b
y th
e LB
PN
SW
Sec
tor L
eade
r LB
R
ichm
ond
upon
Tha
mes
.
10
(10
)
10
(10
)
M13
A20
43 M
alde
n R
oad
/ Sou
th L
ane.
Pro
pose
d in
trodu
ctio
n of
bus
prio
rity
dete
ctio
n at
the
traffi
c si
gnal
s fo
r bus
pr
iorit
y im
prov
emen
ts to
rout
es 2
13, X
26. B
id fo
r fe
asib
ility
wor
k an
d st
atut
ory
unde
rtake
rs’ e
quip
men
t in
vest
igat
ion
in 2
007/
08. T
his
wou
ld b
e co
mpl
emen
tary
to
a fe
asib
ility
stu
dy to
be
com
mis
sion
ed in
200
7/08
from
a
LBP
N re
tain
ed c
onsu
ltant
(and
, sub
ject
to C
omm
ittee
ap
prov
al o
f the
initi
al re
sults
, inc
ludi
ng c
onsu
ltatio
n an
d ou
tline
det
aile
d de
sign
pla
ns a
s ap
prop
riate
). T
he s
tudy
w
ork
wou
ld b
e fu
nded
by
the
LBP
N S
W S
ecto
r Lea
der L
B
Ric
hmon
d up
on T
ham
es.
0
(3
0)
0
(30)
A20
43 M
alde
n R
oad
/ Plo
ugh
Par
ade.
Pro
pose
d in
trodu
ctio
n of
par
king
bay
s an
d w
aitin
g &
load
ing
rest
rictio
ns to
impr
ove
bus
stop
acc
essi
bilit
y an
d bu
s pr
iorit
y. B
id fo
r fea
sibi
lity
wor
k an
d st
atut
ory
unde
rtake
rs’
equi
pmen
t inv
estig
atio
n in
200
7/08
. Thi
s w
ould
be
com
plem
enta
ry to
a fe
asib
ility
stu
dy to
be
com
mis
sion
ed
in 2
007/
08 fr
om a
LB
PN
reta
ined
con
sulta
nt (a
nd, s
ubje
ct
to C
omm
ittee
app
rova
l of t
he in
itial
resu
lts, i
nclu
ding
co
nsul
tatio
n an
d ou
tline
det
aile
d de
sign
pla
ns a
s ap
prop
riate
). T
he s
tudy
wor
k w
ould
be
fund
ed b
y th
e LB
PN
SW
Sec
tor L
eade
r LB
Ric
hmon
d up
on T
ham
es.
45
(100
)
45
(100
)
Tow
n C
entr
es
N
ew M
alde
n H
igh
Stre
et –
Con
tribu
tion
tow
ards
co
mpl
etio
n of
are
a sc
hem
e
100
(0)
10
0
(0
)
Su
rbito
n an
d So
uth
of th
e B
orou
gh
To
lwor
th B
road
way
Impr
ovem
ent S
chem
e. -
(Pro
visi
onal
A
lloca
tion
for I
mpl
emen
tatio
n) (T
his
is B
SP 2
006
– 20
07
bid
unde
r ‘Tf
L A
rea
Bas
ed S
chem
e fo
r Sta
ge 1
’ ap
prov
al. N
o ne
ed to
re-s
ubm
it in
200
7 –
2008
. Bid
de
tails
kep
t by
TfL
for c
onsi
dera
tion
in 2
007
– 20
08).
10
0
(0
)
10
0
(0
)
Su
rbito
n an
d So
uth
of th
e B
orou
gh
To
lwor
th B
road
way
Impr
ovem
ent S
chem
e. –
(D
evel
opm
ent)
(Thi
s is
BSP
200
6 –
2007
bid
und
er ‘T
fL
Are
a B
ased
Sch
eme
for S
tage
1’ a
ppro
val.
No
need
to
re-s
ubm
it in
200
7 –
2008
. Bid
det
ails
kep
t by
TfL
for
cons
ider
atio
n in
200
7 –
2008
).
20
0
(260
)
20
0
(
260)
Stre
ets-
for-
Peop
le
M14
Bro
wns
Roa
d A
rea
– fe
asib
ility
stu
dy. (
This
is B
SP 2
006
– 20
07 b
id u
nder
‘TfL
Are
a B
ased
Sch
eme
for S
tage
1’
appr
oval
. No
need
to re
-sub
mit
in 2
007
– 20
08. B
id
deta
ils k
ept b
y Tf
L fo
r con
side
ratio
n in
200
7 –
2008
).
0
(3
0)
0
(30)
Sta
tion
Est
ate.
(Thi
s is
BSP
200
6 –
2007
bid
und
er ‘T
fL
Are
a B
ased
Sch
eme
for S
tage
1’ a
ppro
val.
No
need
to
re-s
ubm
it in
200
7 –
2008
. Bid
det
ails
kep
t by
TfL
for
cons
ider
atio
n in
200
7 –
2008
).
35
(50
)
35
(50
)
Scho
ol T
rave
l Pl
ans
(STP
)
B
orou
gh-w
ide
impl
emen
tatio
n of
STP
(Tiff
in B
oys
and
Kin
gsto
n G
ram
mar
Sch
ools
– F
ootw
ay im
prov
emen
ts a
nd
re-a
lignm
ent (
Birk
enhe
ad A
venu
e))
20
(20
)
20
(
20)
B
orou
gh-w
ide
impl
emen
tatio
n of
STP
(Lat
chm
ere
Infa
nt
and
Juni
or S
choo
l
6
(6)
6
(6)
B
orou
gh-w
ide
impl
emen
tatio
n of
STP
(St J
osep
hs –
Fo
otw
ay a
nd p
edes
trian
saf
ety
impr
ovem
ents
in F
airfi
eld
Sou
th a
nd A
lber
t Roa
d)
15
(15
)
15
(
15)
B
orou
gh-w
ide
impl
emen
tatio
n of
STP
(Hol
lyfie
ld S
choo
l)
10
(
10)
10
(
10)
B
orou
gh-w
ide
impl
emen
tatio
n of
STP
(Che
ssin
gton
C
omm
unity
Col
lege
)
40
(
40)
40
(40
)
B
orou
gh-w
ide
impl
emen
tatio
n of
STP
(St P
aul’s
Prim
ary)
20
(
20)
20
(20
)
B
orou
gh-w
ide
impl
emen
tatio
n of
STP
(Sou
thbo
roug
h H
igh
Sch
ool)
30
(30
)
30
(
30)
B
orou
gh-w
ide
deve
lopm
ent o
f STP
(Sur
veys
and
C
onsu
ltatio
n S
uppo
rt)
10
(5)
10
(5)
B
orou
gh-w
ide
deve
lopm
ent o
f STP
(STP
Gra
nt)
10
(10)
10
(
10)
B
orou
gh-w
ide
deve
lopm
ent o
f STP
(Int
erna
l Pro
mot
ion
Mat
eria
ls)
2.5
(2.5
)
2.5
(
2.5)
B
orou
gh-w
ide
impl
emen
tatio
n of
S
TP
(Mon
itorin
g an
d U
pdat
ing)
25
(2
5)
25
(25
)
M15
STP
Offi
cer
0
(18)
0
(18)
Bor
ough
-wid
e de
velo
pmen
t of S
TP (E
ngin
eerin
g fe
asib
ility
and
des
ign)
15
(1
5)
15
(15
)
Bor
ough
-wid
e de
velo
pmen
t of S
TP (S
TP N
etw
ork)
10
(1
0)
10
(10
)
Bor
ough
-wid
e im
plem
enta
tion
of S
TP (S
how
er fa
cilit
ies)
20
(2
0)
20
(20
)
Bor
ough
-wid
e im
plem
enta
tion
of S
TP (C
eleb
ratio
n E
vent
s)
2
(2
)
2
(2)
Bor
ough
-wid
e de
velo
pmen
t of S
TP (S
choo
l sta
ff co
ver)
2.
4
(2
.4)
2.
4
(2.
4)
Bor
ough
-wid
e im
plem
enta
tion
of S
TP (W
alki
ng b
uses
) 2
(2)
2
(
2)
Thea
tre in
edu
catio
n 10
(1
0)
10
(10
)
Bik
e to
sch
ool
0
(2
)
0
(2)
Sur
bito
n C
hild
ren’
Nur
sery
5
(5)
5
(
5)
St A
ndre
w’s
and
St M
arks
Jun
ior S
choo
l / M
aple
Infa
nts
Sch
ool
5
(
5)
5
(
5)
Gra
nd A
venu
e S
choo
l
15
(
15)
15
(
15)
Hol
lyfie
ld S
choo
l (K
ing
Cha
rles
Brid
ge)
20
(20
) 20
(20
)
M
alde
n M
anor
Sch
ool
15
(15
)
15
(15
)
Th
e M
ount
Prim
ary
Sch
ool
3
(
3)
3
(
3)
Trav
el
Awar
enes
s
Bik
e W
eek
5
(10)
5
(10)
Goo
d G
oing
(Dis
play
at F
resh
er’s
Fai
r: K
ings
ton
Col
lege
an
d K
ings
ton
Uni
vers
ity)
3
(3
)
3
(3)
Goo
d G
oing
(Pro
mot
ion
at th
e G
reen
Fai
r 200
7)
2.5
(2.5
)
2.5
(
2.5)
Goo
d G
oing
( Dis
tribu
tion
of n
ewsl
ette
r)
3
(3
)
3
(3)
M16
Goo
d G
oing
(Pro
mot
iona
l mat
eria
l) 7
(7)
7
(
7)
Wal
king
to S
choo
l Cam
paig
n 16
(1
6)
16
(16
)
Goo
d G
oing
Med
ia C
ampa
ign
0
(4
)
0
(4)
Goo
d G
oing
(Wee
k)
16.5
(1
6.5)
16.5
(16
.5)
Per
sona
lised
Tra
vel P
lann
ing
95
(95)
95
(
95)
Tour
de
Fran
ce
3
(3
)
3
(3)
Wor
kpla
ce
Trav
el P
lan
K
ings
ton
Trav
el P
lan
Net
wor
k 2.
5
(2
.5)
2.
5
(2.
5)
A
rea
Trav
el P
lan
– K
ings
ton
Tow
n C
entre
10
(1
5)
10
(15
)
A
rea
Trav
el P
lan
– C
hess
ingt
on In
dust
rial E
stat
e 10
(1
0)
10
(10
)
Tr
avel
Pla
n D
evel
opm
ent A
ssis
tanc
e 10
(1
0)
10
(10
)
W
alk-
to-W
ork
Wee
k 0
(2)
0
(
2)
G
ood
Goi
ng W
eek
2007
– W
orkp
lace
Eve
nt
2
(2
)
2
(2)
D
r Bik
e M
aint
enan
ce S
essi
ons
1.5
(1.5
)
1.5
(
1.5)
W
orkp
lace
Cyc
le T
rain
ing
1
(1
)
1
(1)
C
ycle
50%
Clu
b 6
(6)
6
(
6)
Frei
ght
Che
ssin
gton
Indu
stria
l Est
ate
20
(20
)
20
(
20)
Lorr
y In
trusi
on -
Roa
ds a
djac
ent t
o N
ew M
alde
n H
igh
Stre
et
0
(2
0)
0
(20)
Loca
l Are
a A
cces
sibi
lity
M17
C
oom
be R
oad
25
(60
)
25
(
60)
R
ichm
ond
Roa
d
25
(
32)
25
(32
)
B
erry
land
s R
oad
20
(50
) 20
(50
)
Surb
iton
and
Sout
h of
the
Bor
ough
Tolw
orth
Bro
adw
ay –
sid
e ro
ad e
ntry
trea
tmen
ts
0
(2
5)
0
(25)
Brid
ge R
oad
/ Mar
ston
Ave
nue
junc
tion
0
(5
0)
0
(5
0)
Gar
rison
Lan
e
30
(
30)
30
(30
)
Cre
scen
t Roa
d
30
(35
)
30
(35
)
Kin
gsto
n V
ale,
Plo
ugh
Gre
en &
Gra
smer
e A
venu
e
50
(180
)
50
(180
)
Sou
th L
ane
20
(40
)
20
(40
)
Nor
th P
arad
e
30
(
30)
30
(30
)
Sub-
Tota
l
2745
.4
1480
12
11
725
59
7.5
7238
.9
SWEL
TRA
C
Stat
ion
Acc
ess
K
ings
ton
Sta
tion
????
(
100)
????
(10
0)
GR
AN
D
TOTA
L
2742
650.
45.
4 14
8015
55
59
7.59
7.55
M18
ANNEX 2
EXTRACT FROM APPENDIX E (‘LIP FUNDING 2007-2008 ALLOCATION’)
TO MALDENS AND COOMBE NEIGHBOURHOOD COMMITTEE - 15 FEBRUARY 2007
The following paragraphs 8-10 are extracts from the report at Appendix E to the Maldens and Coombe Neighbourhood Committee held on 15 February 2007 and are referred to in the decision (Minute 59(1) arising from that meeting – please refer to paragraph 11 of this report to Executive:
paragraph 8 - Link 124 - A2043 Kingston Road/B282 Burlington Road extension of LCN+ between Elm Road and A3/Burlington Road. This scheme received funding in error. The Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames will discuss with LCN+ Project Manager to reassign funding to an alternative scheme (A2043 Kingston Road/St John’s Road junction?) within the Neighbourhood on LCN+ Link 124, the strategic cycle route between Kingston Town Centre and destinations towards Wimbledon via New Malden and Raynes Park),
paragraph 9 - Link 122 (Ham Parade to Worcester Park Station via A308 Richmond Road, Kingston Town Centre, Berrylands Station and A2043 Malden Road) - A2043 Malden Road, between Malden Green Avenue/Forest Side & Worcester Park Station. This scheme received funding in error. The Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames will discuss with LCN+ Project Manager to reassign funding to an alternative scheme (A2043 Malden Road/Plough Parade?) within the Neighbourhood on LCN+ Link 122, the strategic cycle route between Kingston Town Centre and destinations towards Sutton via Berrylands and Worcester Park) and
paragraph 10 - Link 121 (A308 London Road/Kingston Hill/Kingston Vale between its junction with A2043 Cambridge Road and A3 Robin Hood Way/Kingston Bypass) A308 Kingston Hill Toucan by entrance to Kingston University - Kingston Hill Campus. This scheme received funding in error. The Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames will RBK to discuss with LCN+ Project Manager to reassign funding to an alternative scheme within the Neighbourhood on LCN+ Link 121, the strategic cycle route between Kingston Town Centre and destinations towards Central London via A308 Kingston Hill/Kingston Vale
APPENDIX N Executive, 20 March 2007
BUDGET MONITORING 2006/07 – MONTH 10 Report by the Strategic Director of Finance Leader of the Council
Purpose
This report details the budget monitoring position for 2006/07 at month 10 (31 January 2007). It indicates that there is now a net underspending of £481,000 projected on General Fund Services. This is in part due to the decision taken by the Council when setting the 2006/07 budget to approve the continuation of restraint on recruitment and other spending. The Strategic Director of Finance advises that this action should continue, partly because of the volatility of some demand and needs-led budgets, to facilitate some service changes approved in setting the 2007/08 budget and also because of the financial challenges facing the Council in 2008/09 and beyond which are detailed in the Medium Term and Financial Strategy “Changing Kingston – Choosing Our Future”. The Council has recalculated its entitlement to Dedicated Schools Grant for 2007/08 to reflect the January 2007 ‘census of pupils’. In the light of this, together with the latest forecast outturn on the Schools Budget for 2006/07, a revised Schools Budget for 2007/08 is proposed. The Council has also been notified that it will receive £733,583 in respect of the Local Authorities Business Growth Incentive Scheme. In the light of the unpredictable nature of this scheme it is suggested that this receipt be regarded as one-off income and transferred to the Invest to Save Reserve.
Action proposed by the Leader of the Council The Executive is requested to: 1. note the position; 2. note the receipt of £733,583 from the Local Authorities Business Growth Incentive
Scheme (LABGI) and approves the transfer of these monies to the Invest to Save Reserve as detailed in paragraph 13;
3. approve the revised Schools Budget for 2007/08 attached at Annex 3; and
4. endorse the action being taken by the Corporate Development Team as detailed in paragraphs 25 to 28 below to ensure that the budget is not overspent, to facilitate service changes approved 2007/08 and to prepare for the financial challenges facing RBK in 2008/09 and beyond.
Reason for action proposed To ensure that the Council’s expenditure remains within the approved budget.
N2
BACKGROUND
1. The Council approved the budget for 2006/07 on 1 March 2006. In doing so, it took account of continuing pressure on some demand and needs-led budgets and increased the budget in those areas for 2006/07 accordingly. The Council also approved the continuation of restraint on recruitment and non-staff expenditure to achieve in year budget savings.
2. On 25 July 2006, the Executive considered an initial summary of the main areas of pressure on the 2006/07 budget. This was informed by the financial/budget risk analysis which formed part of the Director of Finance’s Policy Budget Report (Annex 7). This risk analysis is also used in carrying out the detailed budget monitoring.
3. The initial analysis reported on 25 July, identified pressures totalling approximately £1 million, which were partly offset by additional income of £0.3 million.
4. On 3 October 2006, the Executive reviewed the position at month 4 (31 July 2006). This indicated a potential overspending of £0.611 million. The Executive endorsed the action which the Corporate Development Team was taking to ensure that the overspending was eliminated by the end of the year.
5. On 7 November 2006, the Executive considered the month 6 position (30 September 2006). This indicated that the potential overspending had reduced to £0.534 million. However, the overall reduction occurred despite some increases in demand and needs-led expenditure which continued to cause concern. Consequently, the action previously put in place was continued.
6. On 23 January 2007, the Executive considered the month 8 position (30 November 2006). This indicated that an improvement in some of the demand-led areas, together with the impact of restraint, had eliminated the potential overspending, and a small underspending (£53,000) was forecast. Restraint was continued to prepare for the changes required in the 2007/08 budget.
LATEST POSITION
7. The position at month 10 (31 January 2007) is that a potential underspending of £481,000 is now forecast. This is summarised at Annex 1. There are still some significant overspendings forecast in demand and needs-led budgets. It should be remembered that these budgets are volatile in nature, with small increases in client numbers leading to significant increases in expenditure. The main variations are summarised at Annex 2 and explained in the following paragraphs.
8. Community Services
(i) Homeless families
A sustained increase in demand for temporary accommodation, due to a fall in the number of new lettings, has resulted in a projected overspend of £118,000. The position has worsened since month 8. Officers are working hard to limit the financial impact of this by expanding the Private Leasing Scheme and by making greater use of the Council’s permanent housing stock as temporary accommodation for homeless households. These measures are
N3
now proving successful, with a significant reduction in numbers in the most expensive accommodation.
(ii) Community Care Services
Purchasing Teams – the projected overspend has reduced to £49,000. It has not yet been possible to fully reduce employee expenditure in line with budget reductions in respect of increased vacancy rates. However, given the size of these teams, it is expected that the necessary level of turnover will occur to enable these to be achieved.
Residential Care – overall this budget is anticipated to overspend by £505,000. The projected overspends on Older People’s, Learning Disabilities and Mental Health external placements budgets have reduced to £459,000. These budgets are volatile and demand-led and officers continue to monitor the position closely. RBK’s own Older People’s and Learning Disabilities homes have projected overspends of £46,000. Officers have been able to manage down these variations as a result of increased income.
The anticipated spend takes account of detailed projections based on on-going commitments in respect of current numbers of users, as well as estimated spending arising from anticipated service demands. These budgets can be subject to considerable variation, as a relatively small change in high cost placements can have a significant impact on the budget. The statutory nature of this service means that it is not always possible to fulfil legal obligations towards service users and contain spend within budget. Officers always ensure that residential care is restricted to essential placements and continue to make strenuous efforts to contain spending within budget.
9. Learning and Children’s Services
(i) Children’s Services and Safeguarding
a) External Placements
The previously reported net overspending has now been eliminated. Children in Need is now overspent by £190,900, a slight increase since Month 8 due to increasing costs, the number of placements remaining at 7. This has been more than offset by an increased saving in respect of disabled children, £17,100 down on Month 8 due to revised forecasts relating to 2 children. The overall cost of external placements has been contained at the budgeted level despite the factor mentioned in the next paragraph.
b) Family Placements – the underspending on foster care placements is due to continuing difficulties in recruiting in-Borough foster carers.
c) Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children
The previously reported underlying overspending remains but Kingston has now been notified of a Special Circumstances grant by the Home Office in respect of 2005/06, which will deliver a modest overall underspending in the current year.
N4
(ii) Lifelong Learning and Leisure
Libraries (Strategic)
The strategic budget overspend has been reduced by £20,900 due to a vacant post, less overtime than expected to cover absences in acquisitions team, and expenditure restraint on running costs.
(iii) Other General Fund Budgets
SEN Home to School Transport
The previous projection had included insufficient allowance for savings arising from journeys cancelled due to sickness, inset days and other causes. The revised figure shows a £40,000 improvement in the position.
(iv) Direct Revenue Financing of Capital Projects
Following the achievement of savings on the revenue budget, it is proposed to use these resources to address some capital commitments that might otherwise cause other capital projects to be deferred. Two elements are required to complete the implementation of the Authority’s agreed SEN Strategy. A combined scheme has been devised with Latchmere Infants and Junior Schools as part of project ED932. This will provide accommodation to facilitate the proposed amalgamation of the schools, to provide for the needs of autistic pupils and to provide a children’s centre and for community use. This would be funded by a combination of contributions from the school, Sure Start, the Standards Fund and the Borough (£60,000). Similarly, SEN Resourced Provision is required at Tolworth Infants & Junior Schools. It had been hoped to include this accommodation within the resources allocated for project ED938 but an additional £65,000 is required. Finally, to complete the provision of broadband connectivity to schools, additional provision of £68,000 is required to finance project ED759.
(v) Schools Budgets – Incorporation of PLASC
Initial data from the January 2007 Pupil Level Annual School Census (PLASC) became available on 15 February 2007 and this has been used to recalculate Kingston’s entitlement to Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) from the DfES. The actual pupil numbers recorded in PLASC are generally slightly lower than schools’ forecast numbers. This has had the effect of reducing Kingston’s grant by £273,000 compared to the estimate used in the Schools Funding Consultation Booklet and in reports to the Schools Forum and Executive. However, the Month 10 budget monitoring has revealed additional savings of £200,100, increasing the balance carried forward to 2007/08 to £285,100.
In the light of these developments, it is recommended that the revised Schools Budget attached at Annex 3 be approved. Using the PLASC pupil numbers, this means the headline funding per pupil under 16 going to mainstream schools will be £3,614 (a 6.27% increase over 2006/07) compared to £3,604 implicit in the 13 February report to Executive.
N5
There are two other changes to note. Firstly, using the PLASC figures in the Special Schools formula has reduced the funding requirement by £14,300 and it is recommended that this sum be transferred to the Special Schools (Exceptional Needs) Budget (row 2 to row 5). Secondly, the arrangements in respect of certain new SEN Resourced Provision have now been finalised, allowing the sum of £61,400 to be transferred to the Nursery, Primary and Secondary Schools delegated budgets (row 26 to row 1).
It should be noted that PLASC data are still subject both to local and national checking and the final figures will not be confirmed by the DfES until May 2007. In addition, the Early Years Census was still in progress at the time of writing. Any significant variation will be reported at the meeting. Consequently, the DfES will not be announcing the final cash value of the authority’s DSG until May 2007 and it may subsequently be necessary to propose further changes.
10. Environmental Services
(i) Parking Services
As previously reported the agreed strategy for managing the parking services budget is to use additional in-year surpluses from the on-street account to offset the underlying budget pressure in the off-street business.
The Off Street parking position at month 10 has improved by £52,000, primarily due to new season ticket sales. A corresponding reduction has been made in the contribution from the On Street Parking Account.
(ii) Street Lighting and Signs Energy
As previously reported, there was a significant increase in energy prices affecting the street lighting and signs budget from October 2006. A detailed review of the energy payments for street lighting and signs by the service manager indicates that this budget will be overspent by £110,000 after taking into account the price rise.
(iii) Waste Management and Recycling.
The net underspend on Waste Management is now forecast at £277,000 based on month 10 figures, an increase of £20,000 from the position reported at month 8. An assessment of the Council’s potential Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme (LATS) liability for 2006/07 has also been made based on the third quarter’s waste data. Assuming a level of waste going to landfill for the fourth quarter which is consistent with last year, it is anticipated that the Council will meet its LATS target, although the position will be tight. The Council does, however, have unused permits brought forward from 2005/06.
11. Central Services
(i) Local Land Charges Income – based upon the activity to month 8, there is still a projected income shortfall of £45,000. This is due to a reduction in searches and an increasing proportion of personal searches.
N6
(ii) Energy costs – Guildhall Complex – based upon present consumption, the impact of recent price increases in electricity means that there is a potential overspending of £25,000.
(iii) Interest and capital financing – due to the ongoing impact of some debt restructuring towards the end of 2005/06, and the recent increase in interest rates, together with continuing strong cash flow, a net underspending (additional income) of £1,000,000 is now forecast.
(iv) Housing Benefits Subsidy – as previously reported, the final accounts for 2005/06 had to be completed before the benefit subsidy claim could be complied. Now the audit has been finalised, and the claim total is £95,000 more than was allowed for in the 2005/06 accounts. This will provide one-off additional income in 2006/07.
(v) Housing Benefits Overpayments – due to changes in regulations (issued by the Government), annual “reviews” of benefit claims are no longer required. Instead, the Council undertakes “targeted interventions”, which means that in specified cases officers contact the claimant to find out whether his/her circumstances have changed since the claim was made. Over a prolonged period, all claims will be checked via this process. In the intervening period, the onus is on the claimant to notify the Council of any changes in his/her circumstances (eg increase in income etc). The requirements for benefits are different from those for tax credits and this has led (nationally) to an increase in overpayments of benefit being identified when the “intervention” occurs. This affects Councils’ benefit subsidy position. RBK’s experience is similar to that of other local authorities and the estimated impact in 2006/07 is a net cost of £100,000. In the longer term, the overpayments will be recovered, but as in many cases the claimant continues to receive benefit (albeit at a lower rate), the speed at which the overpayment can be recovered is limited to that prescribed by the regulations.
(vi) Local Public Service Agreement (LPSA) Reward Grant – in setting the 2006/07 budget, income in respect of the first revenue tranche of LPSA reward grant (£600,000) was anticipated. Based upon the Council’s performance against its “stretch” targets, it is now estimated that only £450,000 will be received.
12. Neighbourhood Committees
(i) The Neighbourhood Committees received detailed budget monitoring reports at their meetings in February 2007. In view of the provisions of the Neighbourhood Budgeting Code of Practice (in which the Neighbourhoods are required to contain their own overspends and are permitted to carry forward underspendings), a net variation of zero (excluding Libraries) is reported here.
(ii) The position regarding Branch Libraries (overspending of £120,000) is as previously reported. The causes of this overspending are common in most cases. The Hook Centre opened on 20 January 2007, and it is anticipated that in addition to the additional costs of the library service (£32,500), that there will be a net additional cost of £31,000 in respect of the Centre and Recording Studio, as it is anticipated that there will be a bedding in period before income is sufficient to cover the direct running expenses of these facilities. It should be noted that the full year cost of the Hook Centre has been
N7
provided for in the 2007/08 budget. The South of the Borough Neighbourhood Committee received a detailed report in September. It is suggested that Neighbourhood Committees bear the libraries situation in mind when considering the allocation of any underspendings and discretionary spending.
13. Local Authorities Business Growth Incentive Scheme (LABGI)
(i) On 28 February 2007, the Council was notified by the Department for Communities and Local Government that it will receive £733,583 from the LABGI scheme for 2006. This represents a proportion of the additional business rate income arising from a growth in rateable value in 2006. The scheme is complex, volatile and unpredictable, as demonstrated by the following analysis.
(ii) In 2005, 14 of the London Boroughs (including RBK) received nothing from the scheme. For 2006, 9 of these will receive amounts ranging from £27,000 to £1.2 million. Three London Boroughs which received amounts between £36,000 and £835,000 in 2005 will receive nothing in 2006. Some Boroughs’ receipts vary hugely from 2005 to 2006. Wandsworth receives £0.3 million less in 2006 than in 2005, while Ealing receives £5.2 million more.
(iii) In the light of these figures, it is not appropriate to budget on the basis that RBK will receive significant sums from LABGI year on year. The payment for 2006 will be received in March 2007, and is General Fund income. It is suggested that this be transferred to the Invest to Save Reserve, to meet some of the one-off costs which will be required as RBK implements the future phases of its medium term service and financial plan, Changing Kingston – Choosing our Future.
14. Housing Revenue Account
The 2006/07 projected outturn shows a net contribution to reserves of £113,000. This is summarised at Annex 4. The major expenditure and income variances are as follows:
reduced employee costs (£451,000) as result of staff vacancies;
a transfer of £186,000 which is no longer required for rent rebates to debt charges to finance additional capital expenditure in 2006/07;
the completion of earlier years’ external decorations programme, shown as capital spending of £400,000 financed from reserves;
underspending on supplies and services as a result of £250,000 set aside for one off costs of restructuring not being required in 2006/07 – this amount will be carried forward as a specific reserve.
INCOME
15. It is now considered best practice under the Use of Resources Assessment to report the position in respect of the Council’s income to the Executive. This is addressed in the following paragraphs.
N8
16. General Fund – major income budgets form part of the budget risk analysis considered each year as part of the process for setting the Council’s budget and determining the appropriate level of reserves. Variations in respect of these income budgets are reported above, in accordance with previous practice.
17. Housing Rents and Service Charges the position on rent income is reported as part of the Housing Revenue Account monitoring process.
18. Council Tax – this is accounted for within the Collection Fund. The collectable debit for 2006/07 (ie after allowing for benefits, discounts and exemptions) is £81.8 million. As at 31 January 2007, 94.5% of this had been collected, compared with 93.7% for the same period in 2005/06. This improvement indicates that the Council’s target in respect of the Best Value Performance Indicator (BVPI9) of 97.2% in year collection should be achieved or exceeded. Action to collect the outstanding debts will continue in 2007/08.
19. Collection of previous years’ arrears has also improved in 2006/07. As at 31 January, arrears had reduced by 34%, compared with 27.6% in the same period in 2005/06.
20. The improved collection performance was reflected in the Collection Fund surplus which formed part of the calculation for setting the 2007/08 council tax.
21. National Non-Domestic Rates (NNDR) – these are collected by RBK and paid over to the Government for redistribution via the Forma Grant system. The collectable debit in 2006/07 is £68.1 million (after allowing for voids, exemptions etc). As at 31 January 2007, 96.1% of this had been collected, compared with 95.3% last year. This improvement again indicates that the Council’s target for in-year collection (BVPI10) of 99% should be achieved. Again, any outstanding debts will be pursued in 2007/08 and beyond.
22. Collection of previous years’ arrears has also improved. As at 31 January 2007, arrears had reduced by 23.5%, compared with 16.9% in the same period in 2005/06.
23. These improvements in collection of council tax and NNDR are a contributing factor to the strengths of the Council’s cash flow, which in turn has produced additional income from interest receipts (see para 11(iii) above).
SUMMARY
24. The above items indicate that there is a potential net underspending of £481,000. In the context of the Council’s overall expenditure (£318.4 million gross, £103.6 million net) this is a small variation.
25. There are a number of emerging pressures which are likely to have an on-going and increasing impact in 2007/08 and future years. An example of this is energy where the significant recent rises in prices will increase in effect as the Council’s existing price supply contracts expire. These were allowed for in the 2007/08 budget and will continue to be addressed as part of the Council’s Medium Term Financial Planning work.
26. The position will continue to be monitored closely by Directors. Tight financial control is being exercised with all budgets being managed by “cost centre managers” (budget holders). All expenditure is properly scrutinised.
N9
27. Additionally, taking into account the 2007/08 outlook and the medium term position, in setting the budget for 2006/07, the Council on 1 March 2006 approved the continuation of restraint on recruitment and also non-staff expenditure. This restraint will facilitate opportunities for reducing expenditure further, as well as providing flexibility for 2007/08 onwards.
28. Finally, Directors and Chief Officers have been reminded again of their responsibilities for budget management (ie to ensure that the budget is not overspent). The CDT has a programme for reviewing in detail the areas of budget pressure and for continuing scrutiny of the overall position.
TIMESCALES
29. It is good practice for the Executive to receive regular and timely updates on the Council’s actual expenditure against budget. This is the latest of those reports for 2006/07.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS
30. There are no direct environmental implications arising from this report. The increased expenditure on energy arises solely from rises in the price of fuel, rather than changes in consumption. However, if it proves possible to reduce the consumption of energy to offset these price rises, that would have some environmental benefit.
Background papers: held by Jeremy Randall (author of report), 020 8547 5572; e-mail: jeremy.randall@rbk.Kingston.gov.uk 1. Revenue budget 2006/07 2. Report to Executive – 22 February 2006 – Appendix A 3. Report to Executive – 20 June 2006 – Appendix A 4. Report to Executive – 25 July 2006 – Appendix F 5. Report to Executive – 3 October 2006 – Appendix C 6. Report to Executive – 7 November 2006 – Appendix G 7. Report to Executive – 23 January 2007 – Appendix G 8. Changing Kingston – Choosing our Future – Medium Term Service and Financial
Plan 2007-11. 9. email from The Department for Communities & Local Government 28 February 2007
(LABGI).
N10
AN
NEX
1
BU
DG
ET M
ON
ITO
RIN
G 2
006/
07 -
TO M
ON
TH 1
0 (3
1 JA
NU
AR
Y 20
07)
(A)
(B)
(C)
(D)
(E)
(A +
B)
(D -
C)
App
rove
dLa
test
Com
mitt
ee/S
ervi
ce A
rea
Orig
inal
Sup
plem
enta
ryA
ppro
ved
Fore
cast
Est
imat
eE
stim
ates
Est
imat
eO
uttu
rnV
aria
tion
2006
/07
& V
irem
ents
2006
/07
2006
/07
£ooo
£ooo
£ooo
£ooo
£ooo
Tota
l - N
eigh
bour
hood
s6,
341
284
6,62
56,
776
151
Lear
ning
and
Chi
ldre
n's
Ser
vice
s34
,616
034
,616
34,7
5013
4
Com
mun
ity S
ervi
ces
45,6
750
45,6
7545
,931
256
Env
ironm
enta
l Ser
vice
s24
,555
024
,555
24,4
08-1
47
Cen
tral S
ervi
ces
-7,6
180
-7,6
18-8
,493
-875
TOTA
L10
3,56
928
410
3,85
310
3,37
2-4
81
add:
Sup
plem
enta
ry E
stim
ates
(allo
cate
d in
col
. B)
Nei
ghbo
urho
od u
nder
spen
ding
s fro
m 2
005/
06 c
arrie
dfo
rwar
d to
be
spen
t in
2006
/07
284
Tota
l app
rove
d bu
dget
103,
853
N1B
udge
tMon
itorin
gX1b
mon
0607
m10
0.xl
sjp
r/ 12
/03/
07
Exe
cutiv
e - 2
0 M
arch
200
7
N11 ANNEX 2
£ooo £ooo £ooo £ooo £ooo £ooo £ooo £ooo
1 Learning & Children's ServicesChildren & Families - external placements 92 66 13 0 - Family placements 0 -100 -130 -183 - Day Care sponsorships 0 73 41 41 - Unaccompanied Asylum Seeking Children 70 70 70 -15Libraries (Strategic) 34 34 41 20Social Inclusion Service -35 -106 -2 6SEN Home to School Transport 45 58 95 55Use of Revenue to meet capital overspendings 0 0 0 193Other Minor Variations (net) 60 82 10 17
266 177 138 134
2 Community ServicesHomeless families 114 113 97 118Community Care - purchasing costs 88 70 70 49 - domiciliary care 105 -5 5 -18 - residential care 445 692 628 505 - other -9 -180 -234 -276Other Minor Variations (net) -172 -76 -142 -122
571 614 424 256
3 Environmental ServicesOff street parking income and energy 349 401 116 64On street parking income -246 -246 -131 -77Street Lighting & Signs - energy 110 110 110 110Waste management & recycling -177 -177 -257 -277Other Minor Variations (net) 70 40 -9 33
106 128 -171 -147
4 Central ServicesLand Charges - reduced income 60 50 45 45Interest & capital financing -400 -600 -750 -1,000HB Subsidy 2005/06 -115 -115 -115 -95HB overpayments (net of subsidy) 0 100 100 100LPSA Reward Grant 0 0 100 150Other Minor Variations (net) 25 25 25 -75
-430 -540 -595 -875
5 NeighbourhoodsBranch Libraries 98 124 120 120Hook Centre (South of the Borough) 0 31 31 31Other Minor Variations (net) 0 0 0 0
98 155 151 151
611 534 -53 -481
BUDGET MONITORING 2006/07 TO 31 JANUARY 2007 ( MONTH 10 )
LIST OF MAJOR VARIATIONS
MONTH 4 MONTH 6 MONTH 8 MONTH 10
N2BudgetMonitoringX20.xls12/03/07
Executive - 20 March 2007
N12 ANNEX 3
LEARNING AND CHILDREN'S SERVICES REVENUE ESTIMATES2007/08
SCHOOLS BUDGET
Approved Budget 2006/07
Projected Outturn 2006/07
February Budget 2007/08
March Budget 2007/08 Changes
£ £ £ £ £SCHOOLS' DELEGATED BUDGETS
1 Surbiton Children's Centre Nursery, Primary and Secondary Schools 74,268,100 74,438,100 78,778,500 78,767,000 11,500cr2 Special Schools 4,291,500 4,291,500 4,708,500 4,694,200 14,300cr
3 INDIVIDUAL SCHOOLS BUDGET (ISB) 78,559,600 78,729,600 83,487,000 83,461,200 25,800cr
SPECIAL NEEDS BUDGETSSupport for SEN pupils in RBK Schools
RBK Pupils in mainstream schools4 Early Intervention 254,000 208,900 262,800 262,800 - 5 RBK Pupils in Special Schools (Exceptional Needs) 40,000 51,100 96,700 111,000 14,300 6 Other Local Authorities Pupils in Special Schools - 62,600 55,100 55,100 - 7 Service for Sensory Impairment 83,900 83,900 87,000 87,000 -
Payments to Other Local Authorities - 8 Places in SEN Schools 871,000 908,700 1,168,500 1,168,500 - 9 SEN support to RBK pupils in mainstream schools 168,000 196,300 247,000 247,000 -
10 Hospital Tuition 32,000 32,000 32,000 32,000 - 11 Places in independent and voluntary SEN schools 3,147,000 3,187,700 3,288,200 3,288,200 -
13 4,595,900 4,731,200 5,237,300 5,251,600 14,300 Income
Payments from Other Local Authorities14 Places in RBK Special Schools 992,000cr 1,131,200cr 1,239,800cr 1,239,800cr - 15 SEN support to pupils in RBK Mainstream Schools 210,000cr 275,200cr 282,900cr 282,900cr -
16 1,202,000cr 275,200cr 1,522,700cr 1,522,700cr -
16 Net Expenditure 3,393,900 3,324,800 3,714,600 3,728,900 14,300
OTHER SCHOOL RELATED BUDGETS17 Provision for additional full time education for excluded pupils - - 26,000 26,000 - 18 Non-maintained Nursery Provision 1,340,000 1,245,300 1,372,000 1,372,000 - 19 Boarding School Places for Children in Need - 82,500 86,600 86,600 - 20 Practical Learning Options 113,000 113,000 199,000 199,000 - 21 Invest to Save' Borrowing (St Philip's) 193,000 91,000 185,300 185,300 - 22 Combined Services towards Every Child Matters agenda 75,000 75,000 150,000 150,000 - 23 Match Funding for Broadband Connectivity 14,000 14,000 15,000 15,000 - 24 School meals service (St Philips and Dysart) 56,800 59,800 63,900 63,900 -
School specific contingencies - 25 Additional SEN Matrix Allocations 201,600 315,900 300,000 300,000 - 26 SEN Resourced Provision 131,000 106,000 290,000 228,600 61,400cr27 Other Contingencies 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 - 28 Union Duty Cover 33,000 39,000 40,200 40,200 - 29 Standards Fund Expenditure (Schools Budget element) 4,994,700 5,154,000 5,241,800 5,241,800 - 30 School Standards Grant Expenditure 2,664,100 3,081,300 3,876,200 3,876,200 -
31 Net Expenditure 9,916,200 10,476,800 11,946,000 11,884,600 61,400cr
DIRECTORATE BUDGETS32 Provision for statemented pupils 85,800 91,800 86,700 86,700 - 33 Provision for non-statemented pupils with SEN 193,300 193,300 201,300 201,300 - 34 Support for inclusion 16,900 38,000 18,400 18,400 - 35 Pupil Referral Units 472,000 446,800 489,500 489,500 - 36 Behaviour Support Services 178,800 119,700 185,400 185,400 - 37 Education out of school 139,800 80,800 153,800 153,800 - 38 Early Years Service 205,800 204,700 214,100 214,100 - 39 School Meals & Milk 26,100 28,400 30,900 30,900 - 40 School admissions 225,800 230,400 239,700 239,700 - 41 Servicing of schools forums 9,000 7,400 9,700 9,700 -
42 Net Expenditure 1,553,300 1,441,300 1,629,500 1,629,500 -
43 CENTRAL EXPENDITURE 14,863,400 15,242,900 17,290,100 17,243,000 47,100cr
44 SCHOOLS BUDGET 93,423,000 93,972,500 100,777,100 100,704,200 72,900cr-
FINANCED BY45 Dedicated Schools Grant 73,561,000cr 73,799,000cr 78,549,000cr 78,276,000cr 273,000 46 Standards Fund Grant (Schools Budget element) 4,994,700cr 5,154,000cr 5,241,800cr 5,241,800cr - 47 School Standards Grant 2,664,100cr 3,081,300cr 3,876,200cr 3,876,200cr - 48 Learning and Skills Council - Post 16 provision in schools 11,449,200cr 11,469,300cr 12,247,200cr 12,247,200cr - 49 Learning and Skills Council - Post 16 SEN provision 754,000cr 754,000cr 777,900cr 777,900cr - 50 Balance Brought Forward - - 85,000cr 285,100cr 200,100cr
51 93,423,000cr 94,257,600cr 100,777,100cr 100,704,200cr 72,900
52 Surplus (cr) or Deficit to be reallocated or carried forward - 285,100cr - - -
N13 Annex 4
HOUSING REVENUE ACCOUNT BUDGET MONITORING 2006/07 - Month 10
AdjustedBudget Projected Variation2006/07 Outturn 2006/07
£ £ £EXPENDITURE
Employees 6,388,000 5,948,000 -440,000PremisesRunning Expenses 1,266,000 1,184,000 -82,000Repairs & Maintenance* 2,857,000 2,957,000 100,000
Transport 195,000 197,000 2,000Supplies & Services 1,664,000 1,471,000 -193,000Rent Rebates 186,000 0 -186,000Bad Debt Provision 163,000 163,000 0Recharges to/from other accounts 1,676,000 1,704,000 28,000HRA Subsidy Payment 4,904,000 4,939,000 35,000Capital Financing* 4,534,000 5,120,000 586,000
TOTAL EXPENDITURE 23,833,000 23,683,000 -150,000
INCOMERents, less Voids 20,304,000 20,279,000 -25,000Service Charges 3,410,000 3,380,000 -30,000Other 72,000 90,000 18,000Interest 47,000 47,000 0
TOTAL INCOME 23,833,000 23,796,000 -37,000
Net surplus 0 -113,000 -113,000
N4BudgetMonitoringX40.xls Executive - 20 March 2007
APPENDIX O Executive, 20 March 2007
IRRECOVERABLE DEBTS FOR WRITE OFF Report by the Strategic Director of Finance Leader of the Council
Purpose
The Council’s standing orders require the Executive’s approval for the write-off of individual debts of more than £11,000 where these are irrecoverable. This report provides details of nine debts for write-off in the 2006/07 financial year. They relate to debts for which all possible routes to seek recovery have been pursued.
Action proposed by the Leader of the Council: The Executive is requested to approve that the following debts be written off as irrecoverable: 1. National Non-Domestic Rates totalling £413,451.39 as listed in paragraph 3 of this
report; and
2. Housing Rents of £13,166.68 as detailed in paragraph 6 of this report.
Reason for action proposed To remove the items from the list of outstanding debts in readiness for preparing the 2006/07 final accounts.
BACKGROUND
1. Collection of income is carried out by various Council departments. There are detailed written procedures for recovery of these debts in the event of non-payment. Inevitably there are occasions when individual debts prove to be irrecoverable. The procedures provide for the way in which these are written off. The write off of amounts up to £11,000 is delegated to Officers. Irrecoverable items of more than £11,000 require the approval of the Executive. The debts submitted for write-off in this report fall into two categories, national non-domestic rates and housing rents.
NATIONAL NON-DOMESTIC RATES
2. In each of the cases shown below, exhaustive attempts were made to recover the debts. These have proved unsuccessful. All of the cases relate to companies which are bankrupt, in Liquidation or Administration, or which have been dissolved.
3. Case details are shown in Annex 1 which is set out in the exempt section of the agenda. The individual cases and amounts to be written off are summarised below:
O2
Account No Amount £ £ (i) 1330926 21,573.41
(ii) 1332996 99,447.63
(iii) 1341855 54,602.94 1341863 10,937.90 65,540.84
(iv) 1318292 36,673.57
(v) 1303546 1,354.34 1303554 129,545.68 1339460 831.01 131,731.03
(vi) 1333372 33,295.10
(vii) 1274066 11,183.33
(viii) 1308912 14,006.48
413,451.39
4. The NNDR collected by the Council is paid into the national pool and redistributed among local authorities as Government grant. If NNDR debts are written off as irrecoverable, then these reduce the council’s contribution to the national pool by the same amount. There are, therefore, no direct financial implications for RBK arising from this matter.
HOUSING RENTS
5. The Rent Income Recovery Strategy was approved by the Executive on 30 August 2005. It sets out in detail the procedures to be followed in cases where tenants fall into arrears.
6. The case submitted for write-off pre-dates the Strategy. A money judgement was obtained from the Courts and the tenants were evicted in 2000. Attempts to trace them and enforce the debt have proved unsuccessful. The Head of Legal Services advises that the judgement for enforcement of the debt is now “out of time”. It is therefore proposed that the amount summarised below be written off as irrecoverable.
Miss D and Mr T Account No 62050609 £13,166.68
7. The property is within the Private Leasing Scheme, which is a General Fund budget. However, the write-off can be met from the bad debt provision, which is set aside to address cases of this type.
O3
TIMESCALE
8. The write-off needs to be approved by 31 March 2007 to be reflected in the Council’s accounts for 2006/07.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS
9. None. Background papers : held by Jeremy Randall (author of report), 020 8547 5572; e-mail: jeremy.randall@rbk.Kingston.gov.uk 1. Recovery and Write Off Procedures 2. NNDR case files (exempt) 3. Housing Rents case details (exempt)
APPENDIX P Executive, 20 March 2007
RETIREMENT AND STAFFING REDUCTIONS POLICIES Report by Strategic Director of Finance and Head of Human Resources Leader of the Council Purpose New legislation and regulations require changes to the Council’s policies and provisions for retirements and redundancy payments. Age Discrimination legislation and Local Government Pension Scheme changes have created more flexibility around when staff can retire and receive benefits. There are also changes to the compensation which can be paid on redundancy – the powers of Local Authorities to award Compensatory Added Years to pensions have been removed, and there are new discretions to award lump sum payments. As well as the legislative requirements, at a time of organisational change with the Changing Kingston – Choosing our Future agenda, it is timely to consider our retirement and severance arrangements to ensure robust and fair policies are in place which support RBK’s future direction as well as presenting value for money. Action proposed by Leader of Council: The Executive is requested to: 1. Note the operation of the Staffing Reductions and Early Retirement policies from
November 2005 to February 2007 (Annex 1), and endorse the continued use of the schemes to 31 March 2007.
2. Endorse a revised retirement policy for non-teaching staff (Annex 2). 3. Approve a revised scheme for Redundancy Severance Payments from 1 April 2007 as
set out in paragraph 17. Reason for the action proposed To respond to legislative and regulation changes in retirement and redundancy severance payment provisions and ensure revised policies are in place for the future. OPERATION OF STAFFING REDUCTIONS AND EARLY RETIREMENT POLICIES 1. In line with Audit Commission guidance there is an annual review of the operation of
the staffing reductions and early retirement policies which is considered by the Executive. The Staffing Reductions Policy provides a framework for managing the staffing implications of organisational change which complies with legal requirements and best practice. The policy provides for severance payments on redundancy. Potentially redundant staff who are over age 50 may apply for Voluntary Early Retirement (VER) as an alternative to redundancy. However, the Staffing Reductions Policy is explicit that ‘in view of the costs involved VER will be used as a last resort after other measures have been explored’. Over recent years the budget process has required minimal deletions of filled posts and therefore a low level of use of the staffing reductions provisions has been necessary. During the period currently under review (November 2005 to February 2007) there has been some use of Staffing Reductions and Early Retirement policies as a result of organisational changes and agreed early
P2
retirements. Annex 1, which is set out in the Exempt section of the agenda, details the position. Outside schools there were 8 instances of redundancy and 6 instances of retirement in the interests of the efficiency of the service. In Schools in the same period where there were 2 redundancies and 2 instances of early retirement. The continued operation of existing schemes for staffing reductions is recommended to 31 March 2007.
RETIREMENT ARRANGEMENTS 2. The normal retirement age for staff is age 65. However retirement can take effect with
the employer’s agreement either beyond age 65, or earlier than age 65, in accordance with provisions in the Age Discrimination Regulations (effective from October 2006) and early retirement provisions of the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS). The range of retirement options and conditions has been brought together into a retirement policy at Annex 2. The policy summarises the retirement provisions which exist, sets out responsibilities for the operation of the provisions and, where appropriate, specifies how the employer will use discretionary powers.
3. The use of the provisions for flexibilities around retirement age are important as part of
the Council’s approach to maintaining our position as an employer of choice as well as being part of the range of measures for implementing organisational change. For example the flexible retirement options, which were introduced as part of the LGPS in April 2006, provide for eligible employees over 50, to receive immediate pension benefits when they reduce their hours or change to a lower graded position. Benefits would generally be paid at a reduced rate and therefore there would be no cost to the pension fund. For some staff this will be an attractive way of winding down to or delaying retirement, and for the organisation it is a way of retaining valuable skills with the potential to reduce salary costs.
4. However, the costs of early retirement, or extensions of service can be significant and
accordingly, particularly at a time of on-going financial restraint, the full costs need to be considered in making decisions on employee retirement applications. The proposed policy at Annex 2 requires any costs of a retirement application to be balanced by a robust business case.
VOLUNTARY EARLY RETIREMENT 5. As stated above RBK’s Voluntary Early Retirement (VER) Scheme is currently
available for eligible LGPS members as an alternative to redundancy. This is generally an attractive option financially. The scheme provides for immediate payment of pension benefits to eligible staff over 50 with the provision of added years. There is a sliding scale (agreed in 1998) of between 1 and 10 added years based on length of RBK service. There are significant financial implications in the operation of VER particularly in relation to staff who are high earners, in their early 50s and who have long RBK service. The capitalised costs of VER have made it prohibitive in recent years to select those with eligibility for VER as redundant where the objective has been to achieve budget reductions. The VER scheme has been based on provisions in the LGPS to award compensatory added years. However, the relevant regulation has now been removed and new compensation powers have been introduced. Accordingly there is a need to decide on a scheme for redundancy severance compensation for RBK for the future. (see paragraph 9 below).
P3
REDUNDANCY 6. There is a statutory scheme of Redundancy Payments for staff whose posts cease or
diminish. The payments are based on age, length of service and the value of a week’s pay. There is a statutory minimum of a week’s pay (currently £290 per week) and a statutory maximum of the total number of years of service which can be recognised of 20 years service (this would create a maximum redundancy payment of 30 weeks’ pay for those who are over age 61).
7. At RBK staff who are made redundant receive redundancy payments based on age,
salary and length of continuous local government service. RBK’s Staffing Reductions policy provides for redundancy payments to be based on actual weeks’ pay rather than the statutory minimum. The statutory maximum number of years service recognised for calculating redundancy payments is applied at RBK. There was also some scope for enhancing redundancy payments for staff dependent on the individual circumstances. This provision was introduced in the 1990s after the North Tyneside case which led to the withdrawal of redundancy payments schemes. However, no use has been made of the provision for enhancing redundancy payments over recent years.
8. Staff who are over 50 who decide not to apply for VER benefits as an alternative to
redundancy remain entitled to receive a redundancy payment as set out above and are eligible to receive under the LGPS immediate (unenhanced) payment of their pension benefits in addition to a redundancy payment. Staff who are nearing normal retirement age and who are near to accruing their maximum pension benefits would be more likely to opt for a redundancy payment over VER.
NEW COMPENSATION REGULATIONS 9. After a lengthy period of consultation and a significant delay the Department for
Communities and Local Government (DCLG) has issued a statutory instrument which impacts on the compensation payments which can be awarded to an employee whose contract ends on the grounds of redundancy or efficiency. The facility for Local Authorities to pay compensatory added years to pensions as in the Council’s VER scheme has been removed. The new Regulations provide local government employers with powers to consider making a one off lump sum payment to an employee which must not exceed 104 weeks’ pay. (Although the new Regulations no longer provide for the award of compensatory added years, it is still possible to augment a member’s pension by virtue of regulation 52 of the 1997 regulations. Normally augmentation will allow for only up to 6 2/3 years to be added to pensions.)
10. The new Regulations came into force on 29 November 2006 and had a retrospective
effect from 1 October 2006. The regulations contain transitional provisions which RBK is using allowing for the earlier regulations to continue to the end of March 2007. This means that an employer may make an award of compensatory added years to any employee whose employment terminates before April 2007. Accordingly all staff affected by the 2007/08 budget process whose employment will terminate on 31 March 2007 will receive the entitlements based on the current schemes.
PROPOSALS 11. In the light of the revised compensation regulations, some options for the future
(Annex 3) have been developed for consultation. The consultation included:
P4
• Consultation Paper with proposals sent to Staff Side Secretary – December
2006
• Consideration by Directorate Management Teams during January 2007
• Consideration at all Directorate Consultative Groups during January/February 2007
• Consultation paper available on HR intranet site from January 2007
• Staff Update items – December 2006 and January 2007 editions
• Staff Consultative Committee consideration – 1 February 2007Discussions at Monthly Meeting with Staff Side representatives – 25 January and 19 February 2007
12. The provision in the LGPS for the immediate payment of benefits to scheme members
made redundant creates a significant difference in the total level of compensation receivable between staff over 50 and those under 50. The current VER scheme where added years are awarded to those with long RBK service further benefited staff over 50 whereas gave no benefit to those under 50. Accordingly when reviewing the way forward for compensation payments some consideration has been given towards equalising the benefits between those under and over age 50.
13. Option 1 provides for a scheme of compensation benefits which replicates as far as
possible existing arrangements. As the value of the added years under the VER scheme is so significant (the equivalent of 138 weeks’ pay for 10 added years based on a maximum of 30 years RBK services) this would require awarding eligible staff on redundancy up to the maximum under the new compensation regulations of 104 weeks’ pay. As an alternative RBK could exercise its discretion to augment pensions and provide for up to 62/3 added years based on length of RBK service. Under option 1 staff aged under 50 would receive a statutory redundancy payment based on actual earnings, in line with the existing arrangements. Based on a weighted sample of 100 redundancies the cost of compensation payments under option 1 would be an estimated £1.64M.
14. Option 2 provides for a scheme of compensation benefits which would be the most
cost efficient to the Council with the payment of statutory redundancy payments based on actual earnings to all staff. This would provide up to a maximum of 30 weeks’ pay as a redundancy payment. In addition eligible staff over age 50 would be able to receive immediate payment of pension benefits on redundancy. Based on a weighted sample of 100 redundancies the cost of compensation payments under option 2 would be an estimated £1.17M.
15. Option 3 provides for a scheme of compensation benefits which provides for some
equalisation of benefits between staff over and under age 50. Redundancy payments would be based on 2 weeks’ pay for each year of RBK service up to a maximum of 40 weeks’ pay. In addition eligible staff over age 50 would be able to receive immediate payment of pension benefits on redundancy. Based on a weighted sample of 100 redundancies the cost of compensation payments under option 3 would be an estimated £1.45M.
16. There has been a low level of response to the consultation from staff in Directorate
Consultative Groups and individually. From the few responses made (largely from
P5
staff over age 50) there is support for Option 1. Staff Side have made representations at the monthly meeting with the Chief Executive and Head of Human Resources, and at Staff Consultative Committee, that the preferred way forward would be option 1. Management teams in reviewing the options for the future have been particularly mindful of the costs of redundancy payments. In view of the financial outlook for the Council, and the likelihood of a higher level of staffing reductions for the future it is considered that Option 1 is unaffordable and would lead to a higher level of staff reductions in order to meet the cost of redundancy payments than the other options.
RECOMMENDATION 17. In the light of the Council’s budget outlook and the significant costs of the redundancy
/ severance payments proposals it is recommended that the redundancy severance compensation should be made on the basis set out below. This is an amalgamation of options 2 and 3. The estimated cost of the recommendation based on a weighted sample of 100 redundancies is £1.35M. The proposal recognises the benefit to LGPS members of immediate payment of pension benefits on redundancy and goes some way to equalising the position with those under age 50. In all the circumstances it is considered to be a workable, affordable and reasonable proposal.
It is recommended that RBK’s policy on the operation of its discretion under the 2006 Discretionary Payment Regulations effective from 1 April 2007 should be: 1. Staff who are members of the Local Government Pension Scheme and who are eligible to
receive immediate pension benefits on redundancy (currently staff who are over age 50)
• Statutory redundancy payment based on actual pay 2. Staff who are ineligible for the immediate payment of pension benefits on redundancy (ie
who are under age 50 or who are not members of the Pension scheme)
• Enhanced redundancy payment based on actual pay and 2 years pay for each year of continuous RBK service up to a maximum of 40 weeks pay.
MONITORING AND REVIEW The operation of RBK’s policies in relation to redundancy severance payments and early retirements will be monitored and will be reported annually to the Executive, in accordance with good practice and Audit Commission Guidance. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS None arising from this report Background Papers: held by Sheila West (author of report), 020 8547 5153; e-mail: Sheila.West@RBK.kingston.gov.uk
• RBK’s Staffing Reductions Policy • LGPS Regulations • Age discrimination regulations and guidance
P6
ANNEX 2
Retirement Policy
Purpose It is a requirement of the London Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) that policies on early retirement are set out. We make a considerable investment in our Human Resources policies to enable our staff to make the best possible contribution to meeting our organisational goals. This means having policies which recognise and reflect legislative changes which impact upon our current practices. There are two new pieces of legislation which have resulted in changes to the Local Government Pension Scheme and the Discretionary Compensation Regulations - The Finance Act 2004 and The Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006. In light of this it is timely to consider the Council retirement arrangements to ensure that we have robust, fair and value for money policies and practices which support our future direction. This policy outlines the various retirement options which take into consideration the Council’s Work-life Balance Strategy and aim to clarify and provide equity for all Council staff. Scope This policy applies to all non-teaching Council staff. This policy will be adapted for teaching staff in light of the changes to the Teachers’ Pension Scheme anticipated over the next year. Responsibilities Employees
• To adhere to the relevant procedures in place when considering and applying for particular retirement options.
Heads of Service • To ensure fair consideration is given to all requests for early retirement in accordance
with the relevant policies and procedures. Head of Human Resources
• To provide policy guidance and advice on retirement arrangements to staff, in conjunction with Pension Services.
• To fairly authorise all applications for flexible retirement taking into consideration all relevant factors.
• To make recommendations to the Chief Executive and Strategic Director of Finance on the retirement provisions and early payment of pension benefits as specified within this policy.
Chief Executive/Strategic Director of Finance • To consider fairly recommendations and make appropriate decisions on retirement
applications and early payment of pension benefits as specified within this policy.
P7
Local Government Pension Scheme Provisions (LGPS) Members of the pension scheme at age 65 are entitled to retirement benefits calculated in accordance with the LGPS Regulations. In addition members will receive a tax free cash lump sum of three times their pension. The calculation will be adjusted if members are, or have worked, part-time. Members of the pension scheme may retire at any age from 60 onwards and receive pension benefits, but they may be actuarially reduced.
Retirement Options at 65 Fair retirement under the Age Regulations The normal retirement age is 65, however in light of the recent changes there is now provision for those who stay in employment beyond age 65 to remain members of the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) to age 75. The Age Regulations in place from October 2006 provide for employees who wish, subject to the permission of the employer, to remain at work beyond normal retirement age. The decision to allow members of staff to carry on working beyond retirement age is determined by Heads of Service. General criteria which managers will consider when looking at a request to carry on working is whether the post is still needed within the service or whether there are any plans for a restructure which may affect the current post. Also whether there is any sickness absence, capability or conduct issues with the staff member concerned. Full details on the Regulations can be found on the Human Resources Homepage under ‘Guidance on the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006’. Flexible Retirement at age 65 Flexible retirement is an option introduced into the Pension Scheme from 6 April 2006 allowing members of staff to retire and take their pension benefits and continue working on a reduced hours basis or in a lower graded job. These provisions are available to staff age 50 and over subject to the agreement of the employer. Employees who reduce their hours must usually do so by half of the usual hours they work or by at least 25% of their total hours. For staff aged 65 or over who take advantage of flexible retirement pensions are paid without reduction. Employee requests are considered and authorised by the Head of Service in the light of the needs of the service. Agreement to flexible retirement requests may create a part time vacancy or allow a reasonable cost saving for the service. This is in line with the Council’s Work-life Balance Strategy.
Early Retirement There are several circumstances where retirement benefits can be paid before age 65: Flexible retirement Flexible retirement is an option for eligible employees age 50 and over and will be available to staff subject to the above conditions. For staff under between age 50 and 65 pension benefits payable would be actuarially reduced to take into account early payment. The Council has the discretion to waive all or part of the reduction. In exercising its discretion account will be taken of individual circumstances and any supporting business case
P8
presented by the employee and endorsed by Heads of Service. The decision to agree the payment of unreduced benefits lies with the Head of Human Resources having received recommendations from Pension Services and taking into consideration any cost to the Pension Fund. Ill Health Retirement For an employee to be ill health retired an independently registered medical practitioner needs to certify that an employee is permanently incapable of discharging efficiently the duties of that employment because of ill health. If an independent medical adviser certifies that the member of staff is permanently unfit to do their job or a comparable job because of ill health, the employee is entitled to immediate payment of their pension benefits. The staff member will be requested to sign their agreement to the termination of their employment on ill health grounds. Retirement benefits may be enhanced for members of the Scheme in accordance with the LGPS Regulations. Over the years the regulation has become tighter and there have been a reduced number of cases which qualify for retirement on ill health grounds. For non-teaching employees in the LGPS the certificate of permanent ill health will qualify them for ill health retirement. Retirement on Compassionate Grounds There are provisions in the LGPS allowing members aged over 50 to retire on compassionate grounds with immediate benefits, at the discretion of the employer. These benefits may be subject to reduction. When an employee applies for retirement on compassionate grounds, the Council will consider the case on its merits, taking into account any cost to the Pension Fund. The Council will not consider retirement on compassionate grounds for anyone who is not a current employee of the Council, if there is a cost to the Pension Fund. Requests for retirement on compassionate grounds are considered on their individual merits and authorised by the Chief Executive and Strategic Director of Finance on the recommendation of the Head of Human Resources. It is intended that requests for retirement on compassionate grounds will only to be agreed where there is a sound business case to support the application which can justify any costs. Retirement in the Interests of Efficiency (RIES) If an employee is age 50 years or over and is retired in the interests of efficiency they will be entitled to immediate payment of their pension benefits. It is intended that Retirement in the Interests of the Efficiency of the Service will continue to be available to a small number of cases annually with each application being considered on its merits. In reaching decisions consideration will be given to the robustness of the business case presented and supported by senior management, and, importantly the costs of the retirement. To grant early retirement, the Council has to have grounds for considering that agreeing to it will improve the efficiency of the service. Requests for RIES are authorised by the Chief Executive and Strategic Director of Finance on the recommendation of the Head of Human Resources. Requests for RIES will only to be agreed where there is a sound business case to support the application which can justify any costs.
P9
Augmentation of Service for Pension Purposes There is provision within the LGPS to augment a member’s pension of up to 6 2/3 added years. This will be considered on an exceptional basis in the light of the individual circumstances of the case and any potential organisational benefits. Any such cases would be authorised by the Chief Executive and Strategic Director of Finance on the recommendation of the Head of Human Resources in the light of the business case and the costs incurred.. 85-Year Rule Under the 85 year rule members could retire age 50 or over and receive immediate payment of unreduced benefits if their age plus membership equalled at least 85. The Employer’s consent was required for those retiring under age 60. The 85 year rule was removed from October 2006. However those members who joined the Pension Scheme before 1 October 2006 have some protection. The consent of the employer to requests for retirement under the 85 year rule from protected employees under age 60 will continue to be required. Any such requests to retire under the 85 year rule before age 60 will be considered in the same way as requests for Retirement in the Interests of the Efficiency of the Service, as set out above. Re-employment of Pensioners Statement of Policy Concerning Abatement of Retirement Pensions in New Employment Where a pensioner enters new employment with a Scheme employer other than one in which he/she is eligible to join a teacher’s scheme, the amount of his pension will be subject to review according to the level of earning in his/her employment. The amount of any reduction in his/her pension shall be calculated according to paragraphs 2 and 5 of schedule D5 to the LGPS 1995 in force immediately before the LGPS 1997. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of Schedule D5 shall also apply during the new employment. In Schedule D5, where reference is made to annual rate of pension, this shall be the annual pension before any conversion between lump sums and pensions under regulation 58 and 59 or under regulation 20(3A) of the LGPS 1997 as amended. The amount will not be subject to review where the new employment commenced after the pensioner reached age 65. Conclusion Guidance on all these options is available on the Intranet and/or advice can be sought from the Human Resources Department and Pension Services. This policy will be monitored and reviewed regularly in accordance with any legislative changes which impact upon the Local Government Pension Scheme. March 2007
P10
ANNEX 3 Redundancy / Severance Payment Options Option 1 – As similar as possible to existing arrangements
• For Over 50s - Immediate access to pension benefits plus, either, a lump sum severance payment of a maximum of 104 weeks pay (although the maximum value of 10 added years equates to 138 weeks pay), or, augmentation of pension up to 6 2/3 added years (which equates to a maximum of 90 weeks pay)
• Under 50s - Retain redundancy payment based on statutory scheme(1 weeks’ pay
for each year of local government service under age 41 and 1 ½ weeks’ pay for each year of service age 41+) based on actual pay, up to a maximum of 20 years service which equates to a possible maximum payment of 30 weeks’ pay.
Advantages
o Although over 50s with long RBK service would be worse off than with current VER arrangements, provisions are the nearest possible to existing position.
o For those who opted for the pension enhancement termination of employment
would be by mutual agreement Disadvantages
o Against the spirit of the legislation, which has specifically removed the added years provision, and therefore it may be open to challenge
o Expensive option with significant on-going costs for over 50s.
o Disproportionate compensation to over 50s who already benefit by immediate
payment of pension benefits Option 2 – Most cost efficient to the Council
• Over 50s – Immediate access to pension benefits for eligible employees (but no option for any added years) together with payment of statutory redundancy payment based on actual pay
• Under 50s – Retain statutory redundancy payment based on actual pay (as
described in option 1)
P11
Advantages
o Option with maximum financial benefits for the Council o Fewer redundancies would be required to meet budget savings targets
o No change for under 50s
Disadvantages
o Loss of expectation by existing RBK staff of option of enhanced pension benefits on redundancy and over age 50
o No improvement in compensatory benefits for under 50s
Option 3 – Some equalisation of benefits between under and over 50s
• Over 50s – Immediate access to pension benefits for eligible employees (but no option for any added years) plus payment of a redundancy payment based on 2 weeks’ payment for each year of RBK service up to a maximum of 20 years service ie 40 weeks pay. (Previous local government service would be recognised as in option 2.)
• Under 50s – Redundancy payment based on 2 weeks’ payment for each year of
RBK service as in over 50s above. Advantages
o Rewards RBK service o Keeps costs reasonably contained as maximum payment would be based on
statutory maximum ie 40 weeks actual pay
o Some equalisation of benefits between under and over age 50 Disadvantages
o Additional costs overall from option 2 leading to potential for greater number of staff to be made redundant to achieve any budget saving
o Increases in costs over current arrangements of making staff under age 50
redundant.