One Barnet - Generator of Social Despair

I watched some of George Osbourne's speech today and I was overcome with an impending sense of doom and despair at the shortsighted nature of his solutions. Cutting benefits to the unemployed is treating the symptom not the problem and the problem is not enough decent paid jobs. In Barnet, the Council has set upon a madcap scheme called One Barnet which, over the next 12 months, will outsource 90% of the council's workforce. Some of these jobs will go to other boroughs in London like Brent and Harrow, some will go to other towns and cities where pay rates are lower and some may end up going to India where pay rates are rock bottom.

But what happens to all those Council staff who are made redundant or have their terms and conditions cut - they end up on benefits because at the minute there are very few new jobs in the private sector. In Barnet this wholesale demolition of the workforce will end us costing us, as a society, a great deal more. It will also have an impact on community cohesion. Cutting benefits will not make people any more able to find a job if there aren't any. It will just make their situation worse.

In Barnet we have just one business park where the Council's offices are located. This could have been used as a springboard to generate more high skill and well paid jobs in Barnet. Instead the council has pushed through proposals to allow hundreds of new executive homes to be built on part of the site. Short term gain but constantly diminishing the potential jobs pool. Many years ago I lived in a northern city where the council had a business development unit specifically targeting new business to come into the city. They brought in many high tech and well paid jobs. But what about Barnet - its not even on their radar.

If we want to get people off benefits we need to create opportunities not simply outsource jobs to the cheapest possible provider. Sadly, like Mr Osbourne, our ruling group in Barnet have such a short term perspective they fail to see the problems they are stacking up for the future. One Barnet is the wrong policy at the wrong time.

Barnet's Landmark Library - It will never happen

The rationale behind closing Friern Barnet Library is that it will be replaced, along with North Finchley Library, with a new Landmark Library at the Artsdepot. This week I saw a copy of the feasibility study prepared by Capita Symonds (yes the company bidding for the two One Barnet Contracts)  and dated 3 July 2012 which shows the various options for relocating a library in the Artsdepot.

The study, disclosed under an FOI request, runs to 123 pages and considers 19 options and sub options. These options range in size from a very small 505 sqm (which is discounted as being too small) through to the largest option at 1,005sqm. To set this in context, the floor space of the Chipping Barnet Library is 1,650 sqm, more than three times the size of the smallest option and 50% bigger than the largest option. That tells us that any landmark library at the Artsdepot will be modestly proportioned.

The feasibility study identifies that the minimum space requirement is 750sqm and that the ideal is 1,000sqm. There are numerous visuals which give a feel of how the Artsdepot might look with the new library added.

However, it is when the study considers the costs that things start to go horribly wrong. The cheapest option is £1.2 million for the 505sqm space, one that has already been ruled out for being too small. The most expensive option comes in at £5.4 million for a 960 sqm space, very close to the "ideal" size requirement, although still 690 sqm smaller than Chipping Barnet Library. These are simply the capital costs and take no consideration of rental cost. The current temporary library is costing £34,000  and takes up a space of 94sqm. the ideal sized option would be ten times that at roughly £350,000 per annum in rent.

So there you have it. Close the Friern Barnet library that has minimal running costs (before library staff are considered) and has a capital value of £400,000 and replace it with a library costing £5.4 million and £350,000 in rental. I know you have to take into consideration the value and savings at North Finchley Library but they are never going to come close to making up for the additional costs of the new Landmark Library.

Sadly the obvious conclusion is that the Landmark Library will simply not get built.

Now anyone with half an ounce of common sense could have seen this coming a mile off. Leaving this feasibility study until after the Friern Barnet library was closed seems to me like a cynical ploy to remove library capacity Was there ever any real intention to build a new library or was this the anticipated outcome all along. Perhaps it is also a reflection of the culture of the flawed One Barnet programme, take something which is meeting a need and ticking over cost effectively and replace it with something new and shiny and, oh dear, a lot more expensive. I don't know how much this feasibility study cost (yet) but it will not have come cheap. Barnet please stop wasting our money and just focus on delivering services that the residents want. Give up on this stupid idea of selling the Friern Barnet Library now and give it back to the community.

Open letter to Barnet Councillors - Halt One Barnet Now

Barnet bloggers have sent a joint letter to Councillors this afternoon following the resignation of Nick Walkley

 Dear Councillor

It was announced yesterday that Mr Nick Walkley, the Chief Executive of Barnet Council, is leaving in order to take up a position in Haringey.

This unexpected development immediately raises the most serious questions regarding the progress of the controversial £1billion One Barnet programme which is due to outsource the majority of our council services to the private sector: a hugely over ambitious project which bears the risk of being a spectacular failure, and having a devastating impact on the lives of residents in our borough.

We have a right to know why Mr Walkley, the architect of this programme, is leaving at this crucial point in the proceedings, just as the procurement process reaches its conclusion, and the successful bidders are chosen.

We note that this departure arises in the wake of the revelation that the council leader, Councillor Richard Cornelius, admits that he knew nothing about a decision by the senior officers of the council to change the outsourcing model of the DRS service bid from a strategic partnership to an even higher risk Joint Venture. This is a decision which has been taken by officers acting with consultants and bidders, without oversight from the elected members of this authority, and is therefore an action taken in open defiance of the democratic process which us supposed to safeguard the best interests of residents of this borough.

We question the unrestricted expenditure of millions of pounds on unaccountable consultants acting as "implementation partners" for what is, at best, the biggest risk undertaken by any local authority with the money and trust invested in them by residents and tax payers:  a scandalous waste of our money at what is supposed to be a time of austerity, and when we have seen savage reductions in council spending, leading to widespread hardship and the loss of community resources such as the much loved local library in Friern Barnet, and the Church Farmhouse museum.

As residents, tax payers, and local bloggers, we call for an emergency session of the full council in order to discuss the implications of Mr Walkley's resignation and for the immediate suspension of the One Barnet programme pending the outcome of an external and fully independent audit of the risks involved in this £1 billion gamble with our money, our services, Our Barnet.

Yours faithfully

Derek Dishman

John Dix

Vicki Morris

Theresa Musgrove

Roger Tichborne

Guest Blog - Barnet Council rides roughshod over Local Community Association

This week I received a very disturbing email from the Barnet South Community Association which I am happy to publicise on this blog. 

 

"The Barnet South Community Association (BSCA) in Mays Lane Barnet, is a local community association that has been in existence for 50 years and has 250 + members, Sadly, very soon, it will no longer exist.  Barnet owns the land on which the BSCA is built, although they do not own the building.  As part of the Dollis Valley regeneration scheme, this land has been included in their plans.  Despite a number of meetings and promises of alternative premises being sought, we have now been notified that  that we have to vacate the site in March next year.

This news is devastating to the members of the BSCA, many of whom are elderly and a visit to the BSCA is their only form of socialisation. Barnet have shown absolutely no concern about the loss of this community association and the fact that over 250 local residents are losing their local community association seems to have fallen on deaf ears. 

The members, all local residents, feel badly let down by the London Borough of Barnet."

It is quite clear to me that this is just another example of Barnet pushing through a scheme irrespective of the views of the community. I hope the local Councillors will take note and ensure this hall is either preserved or replaced with a comparable building before the old one is demolished.

Barnet CEO is off to Haringey Council Does this spell the end of One Barnet?

This evening it has been announced that Nick Walkley Chief Executive of Barnet Council is moving to become CEO of Haringey Council. I am sure everyone will wish him well but it is becoming increasing clear that One Barnet is so toxic that anyone who wishes to preserve their future career is getting as far away from Barnet as quickly as possible. Who will step into Nick's shoes  - someone who is either exceptionally brave or exceptionally desperate?

Graph of Doom - Fact or Fantasy - An Alternative Perspective

Barnet Council have been pushing a chart (set out below) which has gained the rather unpleasant title “The Graph of Doom” to show how the Council will run out of money for any services other than Adult Social Care and Children’s Services by 2030. This chart has been used in Cabinet documents to justify the need for the One Barnet Outsourcing programme. It has also gained traction in the national press where it is seen as a revelatory document which we should all be accepting as the gospel according to St. Barnet.

As someone who is a great believer in the ‘sniff test’, I sniffed this chart and detected an odour, something just didn’t seem right.  I look at a lot of charts and business plans and over the years I have found that it is very unwise to accept things on face value simply because someone tells you it is right. I do not claim to be a local government finance expert but I have tried to take a logical and analytical approach. 

 As a starting point I thought it was essential to understand just what where the assumptions behind this chart and what were the figures they had included. After a series of email, Freedom of Information requests appeals and discussions I finally received all of the data.

I have set out below the assumptions used by Barnet Council to come up with the figures followed by an alternative view of how they might be interpreted. I have assumed throughout that all figures are net of inflation

I start with Net Budget, the line at the top of the chart. Barnet states that between now and 2017 they have assumed that there will continue to be cuts in Central Government funding. True until 2015 when we have a general election but unclear if it will continue if there is a change of government.  However, after 2017 no one knows what will happen so Barnet have assumed that the cap of £277 million of Central Government Funding and Council Tax will remain static until 2032. 

I would seriously challenge if that is a credible scenario. Are we realistically saying that government will not increase funding for 15 years?  I also asked about the growth of income from Council Tax revenue. Barnet say that at the minute growth in council tax income is equalised by the government reducing their level of grant. However that rule changes next year so boroughs may be able to keep some more of the Council Tax they raise. The Government have introduced the New Homes Bonus and Barnet have been allocated £3.13 million in the first two years but that does not appear to have been reflected in the assumptions. 

In Barnet there a number of major development schemes with the number of households is expected to reach 167,000 by 2026. This equates to a growth of around 1,800 households per annum every year. Assuming the average household will be in Council Tax Band D this would generate net income to Barnet of just over £2 million per annum rising by that rate every year till 2026. The Government may seek to recover some of that but given the assumption is that they are not going to provide any further increase in those 13 years is it realistic to also assume they will cut what would be an additional £26 million per annum before inflation by 2026.

 To underpin this argument I identified that Barnet have also assumed that the population will grow by 85,560 over the next 13 years which is an increase of 24%. Is it plausible to assume that the council can provide services to an extra 85,000 people with no extra money? That is like providing services to a town the size of Stevenage with no extra money. In my view this is simply not a rational assumption and undermines the credibility of the graph.

Next I looked at Children’s Services.  The current level is £57.57 million and is forecast to rise as the number of children in Barnet grows. However, in 2014/15 the costs rise by 5.42% and by 11% in 2015/16. This does not appear to be borne out by the population growth assumptions. We are currently at a peak for the 0-4 age group and that may be reflection that we also have a peak in the 25-34 age group, those most likely to have children.  Interestingly, if this is the prime group for producing children then we should be anticipating a decline in new births for the next 21 years from existing Barnet residents and the growth will only come from new residents moving in from outside the borough.

As such, a reasonable conclusion one could draw is that children’s growth will run at no more than the overall population growth. There is also no consideration of the impact of cutting housing benefit and changing the housing waiting list priorities (which favour people with a connection to the borough) on the growth of families in Barnet. These need further analysis and forecasting. I have therefore assumed that the cost of children’s services will grow by no more than the forecast in population growth.

For Adult Care Services the current budget is split between 4 categories. 17% is for voluntary organisations, supporting people and assessment budgets. 39% is for the under 75 budget, 32% is for the over 75 budget and 12% covers management and overhead costs not linked to the population growth. Included in the Barnet assumptions is a massive increase in 2015/16 of 25% above the standard population growth rate. This equates to just under £25 million and is attributed to the introduction of the Dilnot reforms. Given that the focus of this will be in the over 75 age group this suggests that the current budget of £31.5 million will increase by £25 million an increase of 79%. If you consider that Barnet’s over 75 population makes up 0.0577% of the over 75 population in England and that the Dilnot Commission estimate the total annual cost will be £1.7 billion that suggests that even if the local authority bears all of the cost and that central government bears none of the cost, that would be no more than £9.8 million increase for Barnet compared to the £25 million shown in the graph. I have maintained all of the Barnet adult care growth other than the excessive Dilnot Commission increase.

Based on all of the revised assumptions this shows that there is a narrowing of the surplus from £138.6 million in 2012/13 to £61.4 million in 2031/32. 

However, no consideration has been given to small real increases in Council Tax. The council held a “Corporate Plan Deliberative event” as part of the 2012/13 corporate plan and budget consultation. It showed that residents were not opposed to rises in council tax where the need was clearly communicated and transparently recorded. In general they did not want any further money spent on improving refuse collection, roads and pavements. Clearly Adults Care and children’s services do not fall into this category so it is reasonable to assume that if the need were explained to residents they might accept a small increase to fund these services. 

If you include a 1% annual real increase in council tax (which makes up 55% of the total net budget) the chart below illustrates that the gap drops from £138.6 million to £94.7 million. Still a decline, but it is a difference of just over £100 million per annum in 2031/32 between my assumptions and those used by Barnet. This 1% increase would also fall within the limit set by Government for council tax rises (assuming inflation rises by no more than 2.5%) before which there has to be a local referendum.

Overall, my analysis of the issue suggests that whilst there clearly is a challenge in the rising cost of adult and children’s services, it is not as significant as made out in the ‘Graph of Doom’ and should definitely not be met with dramatic cuts to services before all other options have been considered.  I have raised serious concerns about the assumptions Barnet have used and have put forward an alternative perspective. 

 I hope my revised ‘Graph of Choices’  starts a constructive and meaningful dialogue between the Council and residents into what choices we need to be taking to secure the best possible future for all of our residents.

Could a Walnut Whip save Barnet's Libraries

Back in 2005, when we won the right to host the 2012 Olympics, London residents were asked to pay a small levy of 38p a week or as Ken Livingstone called it, "the price of a Walnut Whip". In Barnet that amounts to £ 2 million a year and will continue for another three years. No one seems to have noticed this small sum and no one seems to have complained.  However after 2015 that levy will cease.  In Barnet we are facing cuts to our libraries and leisure services. That £2 million a year would neatly offset almost all the proposed cuts to those services. Perhaps we should look at how to bridge the gap for the next three years and then use that modest levy we are already paying to help sustain our libraries and leisure services.