Glossop Liveability Fund project prosals

What is Liveability?

This pilot - one of 27 in the country - forms part of the Government's Liveability drive to improve our towns and cities as places where people will choose to live.

The pilots will see local councils working with the community to improve parks and open space, streets, public squares and a wide range of public space.

The Glossop Vision programme will include a wide range of projects over the next three years focusing on town centre improvements, enhancement of the A57 corridor and investment in our parks.

Project proposals for the
Liveability Fund

Overview

Aims and Objectives for the Project
How Proposals Relate to Existing Strategy or Initiatives

Service reforms

Operational management

SUSTAINABLE AREA BASED MODELS
BUSINESS PROBLEM FOCUSED
PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY

Strategic planning framework

Community engagement

How will improvements be measured?

Physical improvements

Projects of investment

Costs

Funding sources

Outcomes and sustainability

Partnership

Appendix

Overview

Glossop was originally a planned mill town, in the valley of the Glossop Brook. It has since spread, in linear fashion, along the valley and now has 32,000 residents. The A57, which runs through the town, becomes the Snake Pass as it passes over the Pennines to Yorkshire. Glossop is the eastern terminus of local rail services to Manchester.

The Glossop Town Partnership has just completed a 6-month town ‘health check’, under the guidance of the Countryside Agency. The ‘health check’ revealed significant levels of public, and stakeholder, dissatisfaction with the quality, management and maintenance of the physical environment. The Glossop Town Partnership expects to deliver radical improvements through the direct involvement of the local community in determining the quality, delivery and monitoring of standards of environmental management and maintenance; the implementation of improvements; and in setting priorities for much needed capital investment.

This bid has the support of both High Peak Borough Council and Derbyshire County Council, the agencies primarily responsible for the delivery of environmental services in Glossop. The bid also has the support of the Derbyshire Dales and High Peak Local Strategic Partnership, of which the Glossop Town Partnership is an important stakeholder. All of the partners will consider how the outcomes of this bid, and the experimental approaches proposed within it, can be rolled out across a wider area.

Aims and Objectives for the Project

The aim of the Glossop liveability bid is: "to restore a sense of civic pride to the people of Glossop through their active engagement in the delivery and planning of local environmental services".

The objectives, by which the aim will be achieved, are:

to provide mechanisms for the local community to directly influence the standards and delivery of environmental management and maintenance;

to develop opportunities for individuals or groups within the community to contribute to schemes of environmental improvement, management and maintenance;

to develop new ways of delivering environmental services which reflect the local community’s views; and

to ensure that public sector capital investment in Glossop reflects the community’s priorities and is designed to address the community’s needs.

This is a challenging agenda. It will rely heavily on the activity of the main service providers, High Peak Borough Council and Derbyshire County Council, to deliver radical customer focussed reforms.

It also requires the development of a planned investment programme of a scale and scope which has been beyond traditional sources of funding.

How Proposals Relate to Existing Strategy or Initiatives

This bid draws heavily on the High Peak Community Strategy, addressing 12 of the strategy’s 17 priorities, particularly relating to community engagement, services for young people and environmental awareness. A full description of the relationship between this bid and the High Peak Community Strategy is set out in the Appendix.

The recently completed Market Town Health Check identified 36 potential projects in its draft action plan. Of these 13 have a direct link to the Liveability Proposals. These are listed in the Appendix.

Other strategies and initiatives that are relevant to the bid include:

Manor Park: Development Appraisal (1998) – (HPBC).
Howard Town Mill feasibility (2001) – (HPBC)
Townscape Heritage Initiative (THI) – Glossop bid to English Heritage 2002 (HPBC).
Policy Statement on Flood Defence April 2003 (HPBC).
Local Plan Policy TC11 ‘Regeneration Areas in Glossop’

The latter bid was positively received but not progressed in the absence of the Health Check results or an approved regeneration strategy. High Peak Borough Council has already begun work on an updated THI bid as part of the wider ‘Glossop Vision’ programme, the core of which is the Liveability bid. If successful the THI would unlock a further £2.2m to tackle the built heritage of Glossop.

Service reforms

Challenges/Problems

The recent market town health check, sponsored by the Countryside Agency, pointed to the following challenges in the management and maintenance of public space:

Respond to community desires for neighbourhood service tailored to address local issues;
Address businesses that are not taking responsibility for private space in town centres;
Meet customer’s demands a seamless, responsive environmental service between the County and Borough Council.

Address public concerns regarding the scheduling of future maintenance through better planning and management:

To reverse the under-use of public space, some of which is poorly defined and managed, through clean management plans, inspirational design that improves safety, access and range of uses;

To improve our use of volunteer action to support mainstream environmental services and to engage local people in pro-active action within their community;

To engender civic pride, reduce litter, environmental degradation through a combination of better education, environmental awareness and enforcement.

A Programme of Radical Reform

We propose to tackle these challenges with a programme of radical reform based on the active engagement of the local community and fundamental changes in the way environmental services are accessed and delivered.

Figure 1 outlines the opportunities for active engagement of the local community including:

contributing to the preparation of a Glossop Master Plan, and Parks Management Plan and River Valley Management Plan;

working in voluntary groups, e.g. Friends of the Parks, to work with service providers in drawing up medium/long term plans of environmental management and maintenance, and monitoring progress;

carrying out environmental audits, and identifying priorities for action;

helping to develop service standards for the management and maintenance of open space, and developing policies for increasing environment awareness/enforcing agreed standards; and

participating in environmental improvement schemes.

The proposed improvements in service delivery include:

making Council Services more accessible (24/7) and more responsive (at least 80% of requests/complaints will be dealt with at the first point of contact);

giving the public one point of contact, regardless of who provides the service;

making operational teams responsible for ‘specific’ areas;

developing clear management strategies and maintenance programmes;

providing opportunity for community engagement at all levels

Operational management

SUSTAINABLE AREA BASED MODELS

Objective	Key Actions	Milestones	Impact/Measure
The Council currently operate each service independently with teams of operatives crossing the town to complete specific jobs, with no focus on any particular neighbourhood. We propose a fundamental review of operations with the proposal to establish neighbourhood service teams responsive to the local environment. Operationally neighbourhood management teams, town centre team and parks team would focus on delivering each element of environmental management in a chosen neighbourhood with local accountability.	• Complete neighbourhood audits – so the community define the local issues and local standard expected • Use geo-demographics to model environmental characteristics of neighbourhoods • Establish area management teams drawing together environmental, parks and estate management services and County environmental services • Nominate local service champions for each team that can liaise with local residents, tenants groups or neighbourhood management group such as friends of the park/ tenants associations • Each neighbour champion reports to the area manager who is accountable to the Glossop Town Partnership Board	• Neighbourhood audits completed, evaluated and fed into neighbourhood review by July 2004 • Geo-demographic analysis cross-referenced with audits to support proposed changes by May 2004 • Management structure established and area teams formed from existing staff secondment by November 2004 • Neighbourhood Management evaluated by Board after six months June 2005	Clean neighbourhood environments, with locally accountable management working closely with communities to meet local liveability standards • Number of neighbourhood audits completed • BV89 The percentage of people satisfied with cleanliness standards • BV199 The percentage of relevant land and highways that is assessed as having combined deposits of litter and detritus across four categories of cleanliness
£8,000 for 8 neighbourhood environmental audits and enabling support £3,500 for the Encams geo-demographic analysis £10,000 for area management review – specialist advice £5,000 for partnership capacity building £26,500

Operational management

BUSINESS PROBLEM FOCUSED

Objective	Key Action	Milestone	Measure/Impact
As part of the service reforms, businesses will be challenged to take a more pro-active role in reducing litter and waste generated by their business or accumulating on their land. A far-reaching programme is proposed to engage business, set public standards for cleanliness, improve awareness and encourage business; then take enforcement actions as a critical path to changing deep-seated attitudes.	• Be one of the first authorities to implement the DEFRA Code of Conduct for Fast Food Restaurants • Develop and publish a tidy business standard, so businesses are clear about their responsibility and are encouraged to work harder to reduce waste and litter in public space • Establish an annual civic pride award to encourage businesses • Enforce those who fail to comply with voluntary code through use of fixed penalty fines and by naming and shaming persistent offenders	• Voluntary code of conduct launched in October 2004 • Tidy Business Standard launched in October 2004 • Annual Civic Pride Award judged in April 2005 • Enforcement programme commences in April 2005 following pro-active awareness programme	Reduce the detrimental impact of environmental degradation associated with privately owned land/ property in the public realm • Number of fast food restaurants signed up to Voluntary Code • Number of businesses signed up to ‘Tidy Business Standard’ • Percentage of businesses served with fixed penalty fines
£6,000 for Encams toolkits to support business programme £30,000 for awareness/ enforcement campaign £36,000

Making services accessible -

PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY

Objective	Key actions	Milestones	Impact/Measure
The public want seamless reactive service to deal with environmental problems swiftly and efficiently regardless of which agency is responsible. The public also want a proactive system of planned maintenance for public space. Through the Liveability we aim to trial a new approach of customer empowerment, whereby we are responsive to calls for services and strategic in the maintenance of public space, setting new standards.	• Creating a 24/7 reporting line • Develop software links between the HPBC and DCC customer contact centres for seamless one-stop • Providing one telephone number for all environmental/public space services • Develop out-of-hours response to reflect key demand times • Develop a public service standard in consultation with the local community • Audit street scene assets and record planned maintenance on computer • Agree programme of planned maintenance between agencies • Establish a reporting mechanism to Glossop Vision Board to ensure public scrutiny of standards	• 24/7 reporting operating by August 2004 • Dynamic links between Borough and County contact centres – one stop shop implemented in August 2004 • One telephone number established July 2004 • Out of hours response team for town centre operating in October 2004 • Public service standard launched in August 2004 • Street scene audit complete and computerised by December 2004 • Planned maintenance programme agreed between agencies in January 2005 • Reporting mechanism operational by August 2004	Improved customer satisfaction with the responsiveness of services and the proactive maintenance of public space, with agencies working collaboratively to meet community standards • 90% of all reported/detected problems dealt with in accordance of agreed standards • Percentage of customers surveyed who found it easy to report an environmental problem • BV89 The percentage of residents satisfied with cleanliness standards
£35,000 in development and re-engineering the responsive service (including out-of-hours response) £10,000 in audit and computerising planned maintenance programme £45,000

Strategic planning framework

Objective	Key actions	Milestones	Impact/Measure
To develop a master plan and design concept for the town centre; and sustainable management plans for public parks and river valley. To enable active community engagement in the development of the plans.	• Undertake a master plan and design guide to create a safe and accessible town centre environment • Complete park and river management plans and open space strategy that creates functional public space for all sectors of the community, through the development and maintenance of safe and accessible space • Engaging ‘hard to reach’ groups in the consultation process. • Working with voluntary sector agencies such as access groups to ensure assessable, inclusive design of space • Develop a scheme of public art with competition for young people	• Master plan and design guide completed with support from Cabe by October 2004 • Local town centre management group established within Glossop Town Partnership by April 2004 • Park and river management plans and open space strategy completed with support from Cabe Space by November 2004 • Friends of Parks established and River Valley Initiative supporting the development of management plans by April 2004 • Public art competition launched with two secondary schools in July 2004	A clear blueprint for the development, management and maintenance of public space, agreed with the community, reflecting their liveability aspirations and promoting vision for Glossop • Number of people involved in the formation of the plans (identify groups, i.e. young people, disabled etc.) • Number of people supporting friends of’ and river valley initiative • Value of public/private investment levered in following the completion of plans
£70,000 for the master plan (from capital programme) £14,000 for park/river valley management plan (consultation, development and production) including friends of parks £26,000 for management plan support £3,500 for equipment to improve parks services £43,500 Revenue

Community engagement -

community environmental trust

Objective	Key actions	Milestones	Impact/Measure
To promote the active engagement and use of volunteers to support environmental management. Rather than dip into existing national schemes as such, we want to establish our own local environmental programme, bringing together public engagement, education and involvement through environment audits, pro-active civic pride campaigns and volunteer ranger scheme.	• Use neighbourhood environmental audits as basis for community engagement • Establish a overarching civic pride campaign to engage, educate and involve, including Britain in Bloom, Spring Clean 2005, Eco-Schools, Eco-Congregation, Tidy Business Standard • Establish a programme of work which urban rangers can support (link to friends of parks) • Develop the scheme and train support volunteers (linking with award schemes such as Princes Trust for young people and support life skills for adults) • Establish a ‘Community Trust’ to take forward the project beyond Liveability and create a sustainable community volunteer programme	• Civic pride campaign developed with advice from Encams and support from Mersey Basin Campaign by July 2004 • Work with Groundwork/ Mersey Basin Campaign to establish a volunteer programme by January 2005 • Establish a community trust to carry forward the programme in place by April 2006 • Publicise ranger programme in February 2005 • Spring Clean launched in January 2004	A clear, targeted programme aimed at engaging, educating and involving all aspects of the local communities in issues that can improve the liveability of their public space. • Number of neighbourhood audits completed • Number of volunteers recruited and number volunteer hours committed per quarter (identify no of young people, retired etc.) • Number of schools signed-up to Eco-School and achieved Green Flag within 12 months • Number of volunteers involved in Spring Clean • Number of businesses entering Tidy Business Award
£40,000 for project development and management to transfer to community trust by Groundwork £20,000 to train, equip and support volunteers (short-term pump priming) £14,000 for People and Places membership (three years membership) £25,000 for initiatives including Britain in Bloom, Spring Clean and Tidy Business £99,000

How will improvements be measured?

We propose a menu of measures that will combine key performance indicators and more value-added measurements, such as public satisfaction surveys etc.

In addition to the performance measures below we also intend to complete a photographic monitoring of the changes experienced. We are also going to monitor the pattern of compliments, comments and complaints about public open space. We will also explore the level of visibility of service teams and the role of the Community Environment Trust.

Quality of Life Indicators

QoL15 - percentage of residents surveyed who feel ‘fairly safe’ or ‘very safe; after dark whilst outside in the area

QoL18 - percentage of people surveyed who are satisfied with their local area as a place to Liveability

QoL23 - percentage of adults surveyed who feel they can influence decisions affecting their local area

QoL26 (a) - percentage of people surveyed who have carried out environmental action, unpaid, for someone who is not a relative in the past 12 months (hours worked)

QoL29 – percentage of rivers in good or fair quality

Quantifiable Outputs

No of ‘Friends of’ groups established

No of community projects through initiated through Britain in Bloom

Green Flag Award for Manor Park

Management plans Manor Park and Philip Howard Park

No of schools achieving Eco-Status

No of fast food outlets signing up to the voluntary code of conduct

Best Value Performance Indicators

BV82 a) The percentage of waste sent for recycling, b) The percentage of waste send for composting

BV89 The percentage of people satisfied with the cleanliness standards

BV90 a) The percentage of people satisfied with the Council’s waste collection service, b) The percentage of people expressing satisfaction with the provision of recycling facilities

BV119 e) The percentage of residents either very or fairly satisfied with the Council’s parks and open spaces

BV178 The percentage of total footways and other rights of ways which were easy to use by members of the public (County indicator)

BV199 The percentage of relevant land and highways that is assessed as having combined deposits of litter and detritus across four categories of cleanliness

Satisfaction Survey Questions

Percentage of people surveyed who use public open space for different uses (list uses)

Percentage of people surveyed who were satisfied with the town centre environment

Percentage of people surveyed who know how to report an environmental problem

Percentage of people surveyed who were satisfied with the level of maintenance in public open space

Percentage people surveyed who feel their park is managed and maintained to a high standard

Baseline Data

(i) Customer Satisfaction
High Peak Borough Council obtained the following indicators of customer satisfaction through questionnaires to its Citizens Panel in 2002 (Satisfaction with Neighbourhood as a place to live) and November 2002 (parks, open spaces and street cleaning).

Parks, Open Spaces & Play Areas

Street Cleaning

Neighbourhood Satisfaction

Count

Very Satisfied

11.3

4.1

Fairly Satisfied

140

58.3

Neither/Nor

15.8

17.3

Dissatisfied

12.9

28.4

Very Dissatisfied

1.7

13.2

Total

240

100

243

100

F / V Satisfied 2002

69.6

41.1

F / V Satisfied 2005

(ii) Performance Indicators

Park

Target

Target Score

Baseline Score

Manor Park

Green Flag

6.5

5.2

Philip Howard Park

Green Pennant

6.5

Un-graded

2002/3 Outrun

2003/4 Target

2003/4 Outturn

2004/5

2005/6

Note

BV82 a

7.36%

12%

15%

18%

2003/4 public satisfaction outturn is not audited –
targets will be reviewed in June for Performance Plan

BV82 b

0.24%

BV89

65%

60%

70%

75%

BV90 a

85%

90%

87%

90%

BV90 b

70%

68%

75%

80%

BV119e

65%

81%

72%

74%

BV178

58%

63%

65%

72.5%

BV199

New Indicator – Establish baseline in April 2004