Cuts to CCTV monitoring, rent increases for community sports clubs? Is this really what Barnet voters want?

There are some rather disturbing cost cutting measures being proposed by Barnet Council. These will be debated next week. I hope that all members of the community take note.

Page 503/4 of the latest council papers for the Council Policy and Resources committee has some rather interesting proposals buried in the detail (http://barnet.moderngov.co.uk/documents/g8742/Public%20reports%20pack%2013th-Feb-2018%2019.00%20Policy%20and%20Resources%20Committee.pdf?T=10 )

Here are the key points I have identified - The deadline forquestions fo this meeting is Thursday 8 February at 10AM. Requests must be submitted to Kirstin Lambert; 02083592177 kirstin.lambert@barnet.gov.uk

Rationalisation of CCTV contracts across ANPR / MTC / ASB. Increase income generation. Further rationalisation of control room function. (Saving £200,000) 

Asset Management: Anticipated to be achieved via the review of Green Space asset across the borough; including fees and charges applicable to leaseholds. (Saving £100,000) 

Reduce Demand for Services through targeted enforcement and Education - increase the investment in enforcement and public communication activities to reduce the amount of fly tipping, littering and ASB - provides a reduction in overall operating costs and a small revenue stream above investment costs. A procurement process is being carried out to identify a future provider. (Saving £25,000)

Reduce Demand for Services through targeted enforcement and Education - increase the investment in enforcement and public communication activities to reduce the amount of fly tipping, littering and ASB - provides a reduction in overall operating costs and a small revenue stream above investment costs. A procurement process is being carried out to identify a future provider. ( Saving £200,000)

Invest in 3G Pitches (x3): This proposal will see the Council secure additional investment (in partnership with funding bodies such as The Football Foundation) in modern 3G sports pitches across the borough. These could be either new 3G artifical grass pitches (AGPs) on sites that are currently not laid out as grass pitches, or the conversion of existing grass pitches to AGP’s. Current feasibility work on the creation of sports hubs as required by the adopted Parks and Open Spaces and Playing Pitch Strategies will determine the locations for the new AGP’s, which will be compliant with the Playing Pitch Strategy and agreed with the Playing Pitch Strategy Steering Group which comprises, in addition to LBB, representatives of Sport England, England Hockey, England and Wales Cricket Board, Football Association, Lawn Tennis Association and Rugby Football Union. The council will benefit from a mechanism for sharing the additional income generated from new pitches with any delivery partner. The grass pitches that the Council provides for the playing of team sports are currently subject to charges for their use. Charging will continue for the new facilities. (100,000) 

Advertising on and near to Highways: A number of opportunities have been identified for additional advertising across the public realm, including; highways, bus shelters, parks and open spaces, and town centres. (Savings  £0) 

For purely ideological reasons, Barnet Council Conservatives are committed to a zero % Council tax increase (apart from a the social care precept). Now I am all for efficiencies and savings where sensible, but I believe that you should start by saying "what is sensible". This should primarily be based on what is happening in the real world in the London Borough of Barnet.

So lets have a look at these four proposals that aim to save £525,000.

Rationalisation of CCTV contracts across ANPR / MTC / ASB. Increase income generation. Further rationalisation of control room function. (Saving £200,000) 

Sadly this isn't broken down into where each of these savings will be made. There are three areas. The first is that they will "rationalise CCTV Contracts". I assume from this sketchy detail, that they currently have a plethora of suppliers and that by consolidating or renegotiation these contracts they will make a saving. This seems eminently sensible. I have no issue with this type of saving. I do however have a question. As this is a procurement issue, I assume that Capita will be involved and will presumbly be entitled to a "gainshare payment of possibly up to 30% of the saving. Gainshare is a system whereby Capita identify savings and then the council give them a large chunk as an incentive to identify the saving. The Barnet Eye cannot see how this delivers good value for council tax payers. We wonder whether the quoted saving is gross or net of Gainshare.

Then there is "increase income generation". This is a polite way of saying "increase stealth taxes". As it doesn't say what the income is, I can only deduce that it is likely to be further stealth taxes on struggling businesses.

Offord Letter

Then  we have "further rationalisation of control room function". Again, there is no detail. However it seems to me to be pretty clear that this means less people involved in monitoring of CCTV cameras. In Mill Hill, we've seen a whole spate of vandalism, anti social behaviour and even a shop worker killed. Is cutting CCTV control room function really a sensible move at the moment? Our local MP, Matthew Offord, after years of keeping a low profile has emerged to organise a meeting to discuss the ways in which the situation can be addressed. I wonder if "CCTV control room rationalisation" is on the list of things he'll be sharing?

Given that anti social behaviour is a growing problem and in many cases, the council gets left to clear up the mess, is this really a saving? I wonder if the increased stealth taxes also generate a payment to Capita? If they do, then it seems to me rather perverse that small local traders are subsidising multi national businesses.

Asset Management: Anticipated to be achieved via the review of Green Space asset across the borough; including fees and charges applicable to leaseholds. (Saving £100,000) 

 This is really rather disturbing. The question on Gainshare again needs to be asked. Again, we hear the words "fees and charges applicable to leaseholds" AKA stealth taxes. So lets ask who do these apply to? Well I know two organisations very well who are Green space leaseholders. One of these is the Barnet Eye Community Sports club of the year - Mill Hill Rugby club. They do absolutely fantastic work. They have recently organised collections for Colindale Foodbank. They also run disabled rugby training. Another is Mill Hill Village Cricket club. Again they are an absoilutely integral part of the community. Is it really a sensible idea to penalised and impose stealth taxes on these organisations that are pivotal to the community. They provide opportunities for all manner of young people to get fit, do something useful and play a role in our community. A decent council would be looking to help them rather than bleed them dry. Such organisations should pay peppercorn token rents, end of.

Reduce Demand for Services through targeted enforcement and Education - increase the investment in enforcement and public communication activities to reduce the amount of fly tipping, littering and ASB - provides a reduction in overall operating costs and a small revenue stream above investment costs. A procurement process is being carried out to identify a future provider. (Saving £25,000)

Ok. Here I will do something that may surprise you. I am going to praise the council. I totally support this initiative and I would be more than happy to work with the council and spread the word. I would like to hear more about the scheme and how it will operate.

Reduce Demand for Services through targeted enforcement and Education - increase the investment in enforcement and public communication activities to reduce the amount of fly tipping, littering and ASB - provides a reduction in overall operating costs and a small revenue stream above investment costs. A procurement process is being carried out to identify a future provider. ( Saving £200,000)

Now this is puzzling me. This is exactly the same paragraph as the previous one. This is whats in the report. The first instance has a saving of £25,000 and the second has a saving of £200,000. So is something missing?

Invest in 3G Pitches (x3): This proposal will see the Council secure additional investment (in partnership with funding bodies such as The Football Foundation) in modern 3G sports pitches across the borough. These could be either new 3G artifical grass pitches (AGPs) on sites that are currently not laid out as grass pitches, or the conversion of existing grass pitches to AGP’s. Current feasibility work on the creation of sports hubs as required by the adopted Parks and Open Spaces and Playing Pitch Strategies will determine the locations for the new AGP’s, which will be compliant with the Playing Pitch Strategy and agreed with the Playing Pitch Strategy Steering Group which comprises, in addition to LBB, representatives of Sport England, England Hockey, England and Wales Cricket Board, Football Association, Lawn Tennis Association and Rugby Football Union. The council will benefit from a mechanism for sharing the additional income generated from new pitches with any delivery partner. The grass pitches that the Council provides for the playing of team sports are currently subject to charges for their use. Charging will continue for the new facilities. (Saving £100,000)

 I support this. I am just rather disappointed that this is being proposed at the same time as proposals to hammer established community clubs are being put forward. It seems to me that the Council find large organisations such as Sport England and the FA more sexy than community sports clubs. 3G require less drainage and are easier to maintain once installed. Flooding is not an issue so there is more opportunity to use. I hope that charges will be reasonable.

Advertising on and near to Highways: A number of opportunities have been identified for additional advertising across the public realm, including; highways, bus shelters, parks and open spaces, and town centres. (Savings £0)

Now this is truly bizarre. Why are the council proposing more street clutter and advertising hoardings when there is absolutely no benefit to the taxpayer. Why on earth would they consider such a thing?

I will be submitting a series of questions to the committee. I daresay I'll get the usual inane answers, but I feel duty bound to at least try.

Here is the Email that I sent the council, containing questions and a request to address the committee.

Dear Ms Lambert/ Cllr Cornelius

I have reviewed the papers for this forthcoming meeting. There are several questions I have. I would also like to request the opportunity to address the committee, as allowed under the constitution of the Council. 

The subject I wish to address is the proposed changes to charges to leaseholders of community sports clubs as outlined in the paperwork. I believe that community sports clubs such as Mill Hill Rugby Club and Mill Hill Village Cricket Club do sterling work and should not have to endure large increases in leaseholder charges to help the council balance their books. I believe that they are community assets delivering huge benefit to the community at minimal cost to the council and the council should work with them to help them thrive, rather than see them as a useful source of income. 

I also have several questions. These relate to the following savings outlined

Rationalisation of CCTV contracts across ANPR / MTC / ASB. Increase income generation. Further rationalisation of control room function. (Saving £200,000) 

    Q1 - Are any gainshare payments due to Capita for this saving and how much will these be if so? 

    Q2 - What are the proposed "rationaliosations" of the control room functions. How will these 

    affect  the operational capabilities of the function.

Asset Management: Anticipated to be achieved via the review of Green Space asset across the borough; including fees and charges applicable to leaseholds. (Saving £100,000) 

    Q3 - Please supply a full list of leaseholders affected and the proposed increases and (including

    gainshare payments for Capita if these apply)

Reduce Demand for Services through targeted enforcement and Education - increase the investment in enforcement and public communication activities to reduce the amount of fly tipping, littering and ASB - provides a reduction in overall operating costs and a small revenue stream above investment costs. A procurement process is being carried out to identify a future provider. (Saving £25,000)

   Q4 - I fully support this initiative (based on this scant information). Please supply information as to

   how this scheme will offer and how the savings of £25,000 will be achieved. 

Reduce Demand for Services through targeted enforcement and Education - increase the investment in enforcement and public communication activities to reduce the amount of fly tipping, littering and ASB - provides a reduction in overall operating costs and a small revenue stream above investment costs. A procurement process is being carried out to identify a future provider. ( Saving £200,000)

Q5 - This paragraph appears to be a repeat of the previous one. The only difference being the amount saved. Please can you explain or provide a breakdown of the £200,000 savings if this is correct (including gainshare details)

Invest in 3G Pitches (x3): This proposal will see the Council secure additional investment (in partnership with funding bodies such as The Football Foundation) in modern 3G sports pitches across the borough. These could be either new 3G artifical grass pitches (AGPs) on sites that are currently not laid out as grass pitches, or the conversion of existing grass pitches to AGP’s. Current feasibility work on the creation of sports hubs as required by the adopted Parks and Open Spaces and Playing Pitch Strategies will determine the locations for the new AGP’s, which will be compliant with the Playing Pitch Strategy and agreed with the Playing Pitch Strategy Steering Group which comprises, in addition to LBB, representatives of Sport England, England Hockey, England and Wales Cricket Board, Football Association, Lawn Tennis Association and Rugby Football Union. The council will benefit from a mechanism for sharing the additional income generated from new pitches with any delivery partner. The grass pitches that the Council provides for the playing of team sports are currently subject to charges for their use. Charging will continue for the new facilities. (100,000) 

Q6 - We support this initiative. Please supply details of the proposed locations of these pitches and the proposed operational details.

Advertising on and near to Highways: A number of opportunities have been identified for additional advertising across the public realm, including; highways, bus shelters, parks and open spaces, and town centres. (Savings  £0) 

Q7 - This paragraph details a saving of nothing. What is the purpose increasing street clutter when there is no benefit to the taxpayer. 

Q8 - Will Capita receive a gainshare payment in relation to this item, please detail the amount if this is due?

I believe these items appear on page 503/4 of the reports pack. With regards to the possible typo/duplication, please correct and let me know as a matter of urgency.

Regards

Roger Tichborne