Agenda item

Resolved: that the evidence for the Committee’s review be noted.

4.1    Jon Kanareck (Director of Resident Service, Lewisham Homes) and Martin Ryan (Head of Environmental Services, Lewisham Homes) were invited to address the Committee – the following key points were noted:

·         Lewisham Homes brought its services back in-house from Glendale in 2015.

·         The process had been successful and customer satisfaction had increased by 20%. However – there were cost implications as a result of bringing the service in-house.

·         Work had taken place with community organisations to increase access to green spaces for Lewisham Homes’ residents.

4.2    Jon Kanareck and Martin Ryan responded to questions from the Committee – the following key points were noted:

·         Lewisham Homes maintained the quality of its in-house service through a rigorous programme of inspections.

·         Employee conditions and pay had improved as a result of bringing services in-house. This had led to in improvement in motivation of staff and the quality of their work. However – this had also resulted in increased pension and overhead costs.

·         Refuse collection services could not keep up with the volume of waste being produced on housing estates – which meant it frequently overflowed into green spaces.

·         It was hoped that there would be some benefits from the Council’s parks services being brought in-house. It might enable the sharing of facilities and services – as well as the maintenance of some spaces that currently fell between the care of Lewisham Homes and the parks service.

·         Residents had expressed a preference for colourful planting in the summer – so the service had started annual planting (rather than perennials) – it was recognised that this was not as sustainable. Further discussions would be carried out with residents regarding sustainability and the climate emergency.

·         Lewisham Homes only provided green spaces management and maintenance to Lewisham Homes stock – the Brockley PFI had its own arrangements for maintenance and management.

·         The development of the ‘bee corridor’ was in early stages. The service had consulted colleagues in the council’s green spaces team when devising plans for the corridor. It also benefitted from the expertise and knowledge of its own staff.

4.3    Tony Leach (Parks for London) was invited to address the Committee – the following key points were noted:

·         Parks for London was set up in 2002 in response to a Mayoral investigative committee findings about greenspaces in London.

·         It was recognised that London’s parks and green spaces were fragmented – and that services were being delivered in 33 different ways by London boroughs, which stifled innovation and collaboration.

·         Parks for London worked with local authorities and independent entities (such as park trusts and the Royal Parks) to share knowledge and good practice.

·         Three years ago, the first ‘Good Parks for London’ report was published – which looked most closely at the delivery of services by local authorities and focused on improving quality.

·         There was concern that services had sustained cuts of a number of years.

·         Lewisham was previously at the top of the ‘Good Parks for London’ report. In this year’s report it was not at the top but it was still close to the top across all of the measures.

4.4    Tony Leach responded to questions from the Committee – the following key points were noted:

·         The current trend was for London Boroughs to bring services back in-house for two main reasons: firstly there were very few costs savings still to be made from outsourcing services. There was the possibility that if contracts continued to be squeezed then providers might go out of business; secondly – the delivery of services in-house allowed for greater flexibility, especially during periods of seasonal demand.

·         Parks for London was not only interested in parks and open spaces but also in the maintenance of green infrastructure from ‘doorstep to destination’. All green spaces mattered.

·         The number of green spaces contractors in London had reduced from 15 to three in the past five years. This was partly because of acquisitions – but it was largely because there was very little money to be made in delivering green spaces management and maintenance services.

·         There were ways to ensure that insourced parks services could be encouraged to maintain services. In some boroughs, user groups were enabled to report on the maintenance and management of parks and green spaces. Parks for London had developed a quality manual to assess standards in parks which could be used to support this work.

·         The presence of people in parks helped to maintain a sense of safety – there were examples of parks in which dog walkers – and residents in the vicinity of parks were given a special contact phone number to report issues.

·         The days of having permanent staff at every park were over. However, some boroughs issued uniforms to members of friends groups – so that they stood out.

·         Traditionally – councils had looked upon parks as assets that maintained themselves. However, this was not the case – parks needed management.

·         Income generation could be part of the mix of activities in parks. Parks for London had developed an events policy for councils to use – it also benchmarked costs between boroughs.

·         The quality of cafes in parks varied considerably. There were a number of issues to consider – including: local feeling towards established providers; affordability of the offer; the opportunity to improve provision.

·         The Council might seek to manage green spaces as a whole rather than maintaining the artificial division between parks and housing green space.

·         Sustainability was a key part of the judging for green flag awards. There was no contradiction between sustainability and meeting the green flag awards standards.

·         In order to achieve a green flag award – a site had to have a management plan – which should help with bio-diversity and sustainability.

·         It was recognised that the standards of parks were falling over time – as the squeeze of resources pushed boroughs to do the minimum to maintain their parks and green spaces.

·         Parks user groups were formed for a variety of different reasons – often in response to a threat to a park. However, once they had achieved their objectives – these groups often lost their impetus. Support could be provided for user group – but care had to be taken about how this was delivered. Efforts by boroughs to set up user groups might be well meaning but they were fraught with problems.

·         User groups should have a named person at the Council that they could contact for support.

·         Sometimes user groups needed more coordinated support from fundraisers or other technical support.

·         The Good Parks for London report was not perfect – but it was the only report that enabled boroughs to compare their services with each other.

4.5    Anne Slater was invited to address the Committee on behalf of the Lewisham Green Spaces Forum – the following key points were noted:

·         The Forum welcomed the opportunity to contribute to the Committee’s review – but would welcome more time and additional opportunities to engage with the Committee on the issue of parks management and maintenance.

·         Lewisham’s parks groups were made up of lots of different people – with varied interests and a range of concerns about management of parks, however, there were some key issues for all parks, including:

o   Support for park rangers – or otherwise trained/named officers responsible for specific parks.

o   Conservation and biodiversity.

o   Tree planting (which it was felt should be carried out in liaison with friends groups). There were particular concerns about ongoing upkeep of newly planted trees.

o   Recycling in parks was a significant concern as was the general approach to litter collection and bins in parks.

o   Possible proposals for income generation – and the potential impact on parks.

o   There were some concerns that the insourced parks service might not be managed as rigorously as the contract that was currently outsourced.

4.6    Anne Slater responded to questions from the Committee – the following key points were noted:

·         It was recognised that Glendale was at the limit of what it could provide and still make money.

·         It was hoped that the insourcing of the service would enable innovation and flexibility.

·         There were tensions in some parks regarding the balance between formal planting; meadow land for biodiversity; and space for sports and other activities.

4.7    Councillor Sophie McGeevor (Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport) was invited to address the Committee about the decision to insource the parks service – the following key points were noted:

·         Insourcing would present a financial risk.

·         Whilst it was likely that costs would increase – it was recognised that there would be benefits in terms of better and more flexible services with a better trained, better paid and better motivated workforce.

·         There was a recognition of the importance of green spaces for sustainability and environmental protection. It was believed that the insourcing of the parks service would create more opportunities for the parks service to respond to these issues.

·         Parks friends groups were an important part of the Council’s approach to parks. There was a clear disparity between parks with and those without friends groups.

·         Friends groups had been successful at attracting external funding for parks. They were also helping to prioritise the £360k of funding that had been allocated through Lewisham’s new greening fund.

·         She was proud of Lewisham’s parks and of local user groups.

·         There was no intention to ‘sweat assets’ in parks. One of the benefits of bringing the service in-house would enable the Council to retain income and to manage events for local benefit.

·         One of the benefits of holding events in parks was that they might bring in new users.

·         Parks cafes were important for all parks users – but particularly for parents and for people with limited space at home.

·         There wasn’t necessarily a correlation between income/deprivation and local engagement in parks user groups. Some of the most active, democratic and engaged user groups were in deprived parts of the borough.

4.8    Councillor Brenda Dacres (Cabinet Member for Environment and Transport) was invited to address the Committee – the following key points were noted:

·         It was recognised that Lewisham had a successful parks service – but it should strive to continue to improve – and insourcing should help the Council to do so.

·         Parks user groups should be praised for the work that they did for parks. Their contributions should not be underestimated. Further consideration should be given to supporting parks that did not have user groups to ensure that they did not fall behind.

4.9    In the Committee’s discussion, the following key points were also noted:

·         It was recognised that friends groups and volunteers were a vital resource for parks.

·         The Committee recognised that the parks service was performing well.

·         Members were concerned about the costs of bringing the service in-house. It was proposed that the service should stay contracted to Glendale.

·         Members recognised concerns about the need to manage the performance of the in-house parks service.

·         Members were concerned about the lack of accessible play facilities in the borough.

·         Members believed that there should be a play strategy for the borough – that would take into account the needs of all user groups.

·         The Committee welcomed the contribution of user groups to the delivery of parks services – however- it believed that there should be a volunteer management framework for parks as well as a strategy for engagement (to ensure that parks without user groups did not miss out on opportunities for support; to ensure that roles and responsibilities were defined between user groups and the parks service and; to ensure that adequate succession planning could be put in place).

·         Members wanted to better understand whether there were opportunities for the Council to provide commercial maintenance and management services to private spaces in the borough.

·         Members reiterated concerns about the balance of meadow land/space for biodiversity and other spaces in parks.

·         The Committee noted concerns about the quality of spaces for sports in the borough. It was noted that there should be a balance of spaces for different activities in parks – and that these could work harmoniously together.

4.10    Resolved: that the evidence for the Committee’s review be noted.