Written evidence submitted by Streatham Common Cooperative (SCCoop) [PKS 119]
The Communities and Local Government Committee has launched an inquiry into public parks to examine the impact of reduced local authority budgets on these open spaces and consider concerns that their existence is under threat. The Committee has invited submission of written evidence on the following issues by Friday 30 September 2016:
This evidence has been provided by the voluntary Board of Directors of the Streatham Common Cooperative (SCCoop). It focusses on the latter five of these issues as we cannot provide primary, measured evidence on use of parks nor the contribution to health and wellbeing. It sets out background, and lessons learned in the first two full years of operation of a new and pioneering approach to park management in the face of continual budget reductions.
Background on SCCoop
SCCoop is a pioneering community benefit society formed in 2014 in response to Lambeth Borough Council’s desire to establish a cooperative Council model. The cooperative model was intended to provide local communities with more control over how their local services were managed, with parks among the first to be pioneered, and to help meet the challenge of ongoing budget cuts through alternative delivery models. Since 2015, the cooperative approach has taken a less prominent role in Council communications, due at least in part to the severity of further cuts and the consequent need for internal restructuring.
A borough-wide consultation on the Cooperative Parks Programme took place from July to October 2013 and aimed to test the local appetite for cooperative or community-led management and gather information on priorities for capital investment. Over 1,400 responses were received: 73% of respondents agreed with having different models for managing parks and open spaces; a vast majority of respondents supported greater involvement from communities and Friends groups in decision making about parks and open space (89%).
Following a public meeting, it was agreed between the Friends of Streatham Common (a local community group) and Lambeth Council that a local cooperative would be established to take over management of Streatham Common and the Rookery.
Administrative status of parks: The SCCoop delivery model
Streatham Common Cooperative (SCCoop) is an Industrial and Provident Society for the benefit of the community. It is a new social enterprise established in 2014 to formally manage the Streatham Rookery (from February 2015). This public-private (not-for-profit) partnership model, provides a similar delivery model to traditional parks management where the Council retains the asset but contracts out service delivery. This partnership model has greater community buy-in and more direct interest in delivering services.
This structure ensures local people have a real say over priorities, but also keeps the democracy and ultimate accountability that the Council provides.
SCCoop runs services for the formal gardens that form part of the Common, known as The Rookery, for Lambeth Council. This is on a similar basis to the Council's previous contractors from which SCCoop took over. However, unlike the previous private contractors, SCCoop is a not-for-profit business accountable to local people who own SCCoop through the purchase of shares for £1. Membership is open to everyone. SCCoop currently has around 475 members.
The Board of SCCoop is elected annually by the membership with seats reserved for two community groups with a vested interest in the Common (Friends of Streatham Common and Streatham Common Community Garden) and for a local councillor and council officer. This ensures democratic accountability and technical expertise positions are built in to the new structure as well as providing for local representation. The SCCoop Board on behalf of the community has immediate oversight over the delivery of the contractual obligations, reducing the demand on Council services.
The liability and ownership of the park remains with Lambeth Council. Thus the asset remains public property ensuring its long term sustainability.
SCCoop is responsible for management of the Rookery, employment of park staff, and delivery of services under the terms of a management contract. The Council retains responsibility and budget for some cross-Borough services such as tree maintenance.
The Board is responsible for employing a manager and setting their priorities and objectives. The manager is responsible for hiring staff and the day to day management of the common, covering services from gardening to litter picking, trees to the paddling pool. The manager is based on site to ensure things are dealt with quickly and efficiently.
As with all Council contracts, the Council is responsible for monitoring SCCoop performance and operations and ensuring the organisation meets pre-agreed outcomes.
Setting SCCoop up took significant voluntary effort and strong, engaged and committed leadership. This included writing the initial business plan, negotiations on budget and responsibilities with the Council, plus staff hire. A small amount of seed funding (£6k from the Social Investment Business Group) was provided in the form of a grant, and helped with local publicity, legal fees and other associated set-up costs. A further grant of £20k was received from the Council to enable SCCoop to purchase equipment and hire staff ahead of starting services.
Such a model requires strong Council engagement at the outset, together with some pump priming, strong leadership from the Board and excellent staffing to make up for the shortfall in resources. The minimum funding required is to maintain core staffing and therefore retain staff and expertise.
Benefits of the SCCoop model
Public cost savings and vfm.
SCCoop has successfully delivered the services for a Council budget reduced from £100k to £81k, thereby securing significant savings to the public purse. This improved cost-effectiveness is ramped up by securing a considerably higher standard of service. In particular, SCCoop has provided a higher level of horticulture and has dedicated staff looking after the Rookery. In addition, SCCoop has commissioned repairs within the Rookery at a significantly reduced cost to those previously commissioned by the Council, and have managed to do certain repairs within existing staff.
Better value for money is also provided by removing layers of management associated with the previous contract. All profits are put back into services on the common.
Additional income.
SCCoop has the incentive to innovate to find new sources of funding and income. Access to wider sources of funding, such as charitable grants, and a greater range of community events. Also looking at other sources, such as charging for wedding photos or use by personal trainers. Examples of this where SCCoop has driven early successes include:
Accountability and community buy-in.
The Council and the contractors they use are big in company size, profit focussed in respect of the commercial companies, and often visually remote. SCCoop is based in the community and is accountable directly to its owners – the users of the common. There is regular consultation and the community has input to prioritisation. In additional, all the SCCoop Board and some staff are local people who are park users as well.
Staff engagement.
By employing staff who report primarily to the community, they take pride in the work they carry out, which in turn leads to ramping up in delivery and real dedication to outcomes. Key to SCCoop’s success has been the appointment of its manager who goes beyond expectations. It is also of considerable advantage that the manager lives locally. He has bought into the vision SCCoop is wanting to create, and has subsequently employed staff with similar engagement. A background in community organisation rather than gardening specialism has been really helpful.
Improved service.
Poor contract management had led to sloppy standards, unsupported staff and poor value for money. SCCoop is more directly and regularly accountable, and the staff are more visible.
Inclusivity and local economy.
SCCoop is more flexible given its community rather than profit interest. This means a more flexible approach to work, including hiring and training of apprentices, use of social enterprises, and links to health and wellbeing groups such as Mencap (mental health support charity) and potentially Spires (a local organisation providing support services for the homeless). Greater involvement of individuals and community groups, through structured volunteering opportunities. Use of local businesses to get repairs and other jobs done.
Responsive and fleet of foot.
By removing layers of management and being directly accountable to the local community, it is more efficient and responsive to local needs.
An example of SCCoop’s responsiveness was the proposed closure of the paddling pool over the summer period by the Council due to budget cuts. As SCCoop is a local community based group, it was aware of the large volume of families living within the area, who use the paddling pool on a regular basis.
SCCoop conducted a survey to see whether the community would be interested in helping to support getting the paddling pool open. The response was very encouraging, so through grant fundraising and a local community appeal for financial support totally some £19k and volunteer time to paint the pool, SCCoop was able to open the paddling pool for this summer.
Though this is a short-term project and there is no guarantee of being able to open the paddling pool next year, it demonstrates the capacity to create new income streams off the back of enhance community engagement.
Risks and dependencies of SCCoop model
Political buy-in.
Following further severe budget cuts in 2015-16 and beyond, Lambeth Council has rowed back from its cooperative model. While initially SCCoop was identified as a pioneer which would lead the way for further roll out, it is unlikely that significant further steps will be taken given that some initial investment is required in terms of Council staff time in order to set up new organisations and contracts. The initial agreement for SCCoop to take over more of the Common is under review, and looks unlikely to be realised in the short-term as the Council has pulled parks services back in-house to enable additional cost savings. However, the early successes have established a good working model that will continue to run the services for the Rookery and provide additional services for Streatham Common not currently undertaken by the Council.
Certainty of core funding.
One of SCCoop’s main areas of vulnerability is certainty of core funding. SCCoop is reliant on the funding the Council can provide so it can manage the majority of its overheads. Initial discussions with the Council regarding funding for SCCoop were very encouraging, and we subsequently put together a business plan reflecting this support. Subsequently, the Council grant has been reduced by over 50%. Income we were hoping to receive from Council initiated events, has now been pulled and the majority of income from events on the Common will fund a quasi-privatised events service and wider Council services rather than being ring-fenced for parks. Consequently, SCCoop has a vastly reduced income expectation, which in turn has meant we have had to review how we manage the overall Common, and have therefore re-written our business plans. A new two year contract is in the process of being agreed, which will provide some short term certainty in relation to funding for core costs, most notably staff.
Council staff time.
This model requires a strong interaction with Council officers, especially during set-up, which is more limited with restricted resources. For example, the detailed information on existing service provision, budget breakdowns and asset registers took a long time to get from Lambeth and its previous contractor.
Reliance on a few individuals.
The limited resources means a heavy reliance on a small number of engaged and committed individuals, both voluntary and staff. This was particularly true during set up. Ongoing management is reliant on competent Board members, with significant voluntary time taken up particularly in establishing the organisation. This relies on particular individuals being willing to take on significant responsibility over a prolonged (1-2 year) time period.
Stretched volunteers.
The impact of the current budget cuts have been felt within the community, as we detailed about the situation with the paddling pool. If there is a continued reliance on the community to make up for the Council financial shortfall, there is a danger of saturating community interest and investment. As the Board of SCCoop is made up of volunteers, and its staff are focussed on the key activities required in maintaining the Rookery, we have insufficient time and expertise needed to be able to dedicate to researching and writing up external funding bids. In addition, the use of volunteers to support service delivery, while potentially reducing the need for some services to be paid for, also requires additional staff report to ensure meaningful and worthwhile volunteering opportunities. Volunteer coordination and administration therefore has cost implications.
Impact of budget cuts on SCCoop and wider local parks programme
Reduced core funding and increased uncertainty.
The uncertainty surrounding core funding and the length of the support available, make it very difficult to put together a forward business plan, provide the job security staff need and impacts on the level of maintenance and upkeep SCCoop can provide.
Reduced Council staff time.
Less Council time to invest in ensuring success. Slows down decision making and reduces strength of relationship between Council and SCCoop.
Income from events.
During initially discussions with the Council, and published in the Council’s draft event strategy that was consulted on in 2015 it was expected that SCCoop would receive 33% of the income generated from events initiated by the Council that were run on the Common. This agreement has now been retracted and all income generated from Council initiated events will now go back into a central pot. This means SCCoop’s expected income is reduced.
Commissioning of events.
SCCoop’s agreement for the Rookery had allowed it to hire out the grounds to third-party event organisers and for SCCoop to keep 90% of the proceeds. SCCoop had initially expected this model to be rolled out to the common in some form enabling SCCoop to build a sustainably income source that would make it less dependent on the Council. This arrangement has not been offered and as such SCCoop’s capacity to fundraise is greatly reduced, as we will only be able to run our own events which is much more time consuming, so limiting the number possible, and will need to fit around the Council’s events schedule.
Reduced roll-out.
The initial ambition has been reduced. Initially, it was agreed that SCCoop would take on the management of the Rookery with a view to taking on the whole of Streatham Common from April 2016, and potentially further services and open spaces in the wider Streatham area at a later stage. This has now been changed by the Council, in response to further budget cuts which resulted in remaining parks services being taken in-house. In addition, given the pump priming required, the programme of cooperative parks is unlikely to be rolled out in near future.
Additional funding sources
Events external profit-making activities.
Demonstrable early successes in running additional events was made possible by paying someone to organise – a short-term contract in the first instance, to establish feasibility, then extended dependent on results. In this case all profits from any events are ring-fenced to be invested into the park. Again, this shows flexibility of staffing arrangements. This can be contrasted with the borough approach where a particular event such as a music festival, creates damage and limits public access to certain areas, and income is not ring-fenced to compensate park users by improving and reinvesting in the park. Income from ticketed or private events must be balanced with ensuring public access to the park and compensation through improvements and repairs.
Reduced outgoings.
Reduced tiers of management and changes to delivery approaches e.g through investment in longer-term non-seasonal planting.
Grants.
Trusts etc provide grants for a range of capital investments and projects. This includes national organisations such as the Big Lottery Fund, and local funders.
Joined-up.
We can provide other social benefits by linking up with other council services such as providing opportunities for the disadvantaged, elderly, and schools to help maintain the gardens.
Supporting new and existing parks, and potential for improvements
For a cooperative model, the minimum commitment needed by local authorities is to fund core staff resources, preferably over a multi-year term, plus support from Council officers. In addition, it will often make sense for Borough wide services to be aggregated where a small amount of expert skills are needed in each place eg tree maintenance. Some wider geographic coordination could also bring biodiversity benefits through enabling wildlife corridors.
Local partnerships and collaborations can result in better integration and use of resources from a range of potential beneficiaries. For example, there are different organisations representing issues such as health and wellbeing, wildlife and pollinators, social inclusion in housing estates, and community groups. There could be a facilitator role in bringing these together to pool resources, and to jointly identify investment priorities, which could then significantly increase the efficiency of spend.
Links to national policy priorities: There needs to be a clear tie-in to the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the 25 Year Environment Plan, including the natural capital approach, to ensure that the protection and creation of green spaces is considered by planners, health service providers, and other land use and wellbeing interests.