Agenda Document Pack - Midlothian Council - 13/12/2022
Midlothian Council · 13 December 2022
Back to Midlothian Council — 13 December 2022 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Notice of Meeting and Agenda Midlothian Council Venue: Council Chambers, Midlothian House, Dalkeith, EH22 1DN Date: Tuesday, 13 December 2022 Time: 11:00 Executive Director : Place Contact: Clerk Name: Democratic Services Clerk Telephone: Clerk Email: democratic.services@midlothian.gov.uk Further Information: This is a meeting which is open to members of the public. Privacy notice: Please note that this meeting may be recorded. The recording may be publicly available following the meeting. If you would like to know how Midlothian Council collects, uses and shares your personal information, please visit our website: www.Midlothian.gov.uk Page 1 of 390
Page 2
1 Welcome, Introductions and Apologies 2 Order of Business Including notice of new business submitted as urgent for consideration at the end of the meeting. 3 Declaration of Interest 4 Deputations 5 Minutes 5.1 Minute of Council 15 November 2022 5 - 16 5.2 Minute Volume Index 17 - 18 5.3 Private Minute Volume Index 5.4 Action Log- Council 13.12.2022 19 - 22 6 Questions to the Council Leader 7 Motions 7.1 Motion - Gorebridge Gala 23 - 24 7.2 Motion Industrial Disablement Benefit 25 - 26 7.3 Motion - Penicuik Athletic Youth Football Club 27 - 28 7.4 Motion - Danderhall Guerrilla Gardners 29 - 30 8 Public Reports 8.1 Medium Term Financial Strategy – 2023-24 to 2027-28 Report by Acting Chief Financial Officer 31 - 40 8.2 Treasury Management Mid-Year Review Report 2022-23 Acting Chief Financial Officer 41 - 74 Page 2 of 390
Page 3
8.3 Annual Procurement Report 2021-22 Report by Executive Director Place 75 - 116 8.4 Standing Orders Working Group Report by Monitoring Officer 117 - 126 8.5 Learning Estate Strategy Update Report by Executive Director, Children, Young People & Partnerships 127 - 202 8.6 Council House Building Programme - Progress Update December 2022 Report by Executive Director Place 203 - 222 8.7 Midlothian Council Speed Limits Review Report by Executive Director Place 223 - 248 8.8 Tenants Satisfaction Survey Outcomes Report by Chief Officer Place 249 - 342 8.9 Edinburgh and South East Scotland City Region Deal 2022 Report by Executive Director Place 343 - 348 8.10 Community Asset Transfer Committee Membership Report by Executive Director Place 349 - 356 8.11 National Discussion Consultation Report by Executive Director Children, Young People and Partnerships 357 - 362 8.12 Best Value Focus from the Accounts Commission Report by Chief Executive 363 - 372 8.13 Hybrid Meetings of Council and its Committees Report by Executive Director Place 373 - 384 8.14 Scottish Government Education Appeal Committee Consultation Report by Executive Director Children, Young People and Partnerships 385 - 390 9 Private Reports 9.1 Midlothian Energy Limited – Business Plan 2023-27 Report by Executive Director Place • 6. Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (other than the authority). 9.2 Acquisition of Land for an All Through School Campus in Shawfair Town Centre Report by Executive Director Place • 6. Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (other than the authority). 9.3 Destination Hillend Report by Executive Director Place • 6. Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (other than the authority). • 8. The amount of any expenditure proposed to be incurred by the authority under any particular contract for the acquisition of property or the supply of goods or services. Page 3 of 390
Page 4
9.4 Hawthornden Primary School, Additional Support Needs Provision - Outline Business Case Report by Executive Director Place • 6. Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (other than the authority). 9.5 Mayfield & St Luke’s Primary School Campus Outline Business Case Report by Executive Director Place • 6. Information relating to the financial or business affairs of any particular person (other than the authority). 10 Date of Next Meeting The next meeting will be held on 21 February 2023 Page 4 of 390
Page 5
Minute of Meeting Item 5.1 Midlothian Council Date Time Venue 15 November 2022 11.00 am Council Chambers, Midlothian House Present: Provost McCall (Chair) Depute Provost McManus Councillor Parry – Council Leader Councillor Cassidy – Depute Council Leader Councillor Alexander Councillor Bowen Councillor Curran Councillor Drummond Councillor McEwan Councillor McKenzie Councillor Milligan Councillor Pottinger Councillor Russell Councillor Scott Councillor Smaill Councillor Virgo Councillor Winchester In attendance: Dr Grace Vickers, Chief Executive Kevin Anderson, Executive Director Place Morag Barrow, Joint Director Health and Social Care Fiona Robertson, Executive Director Children, Young People and Partnerships Alan Turpie, Monitoring Officer David Gladwin, Acting Chief Finance Officer (Section 95 Officer) Joan Tranent, Chief Officer Children’s Services, Partnerships and Communities Sinead Urquhart, Executive Business Manager, Children, Young People and Partnerships Mike Broadway, Democratic Services Officer Andrew Henderson, Democratic Services Officer Janet Ritchie, Democratic Services Officer (Minutes) Religious Representatives: Ms Elizabeth Morton Ms Anne Theresa-Lawrie Page 5 of 390
Page 6
1. Welcome and Apology for Absence The Provost welcomed everyone to the meeting advising that this meeting was a public meeting and being webcast live. Intimation of an apology for absence was made on behalf of Councillor Imrie 2. Order of Business The Provost confirmed the Order of Business was as per the agenda circulated. 3. Declarations of interest Councillor Bowen declared an interest in Item 8.5 on the Agenda due to family connection. 4. Deputations None received. 5. Minutes of Previous Meetings 5.1 The Minute of meeting of Midlothian Council of 4 October 2022 was submitted and with the amendment noted below approved as a correct record, Proposed by Councillor Parry and Seconded by Councillor Cassidy Councillor Scott advised that there was a correction to the minute (P19 of the Agenda Pack) with reference to Item 8.12 Voluntary Community Asset Transfer the decision was not to agree but to be brought back at an appropriate time for further consideration. 5.2 The Minute of the Special meeting of Midlothian Council of 27 September 2022 was submitted and approved as a correct record, proposed by Councillor Parry and Seconded by Councillor Cassidy 5.3 Minute Volume Index (Public) – 15 November 2022– previously circulated for approval and noting and consideration of any recommendations contained therein. Proposed by Councillor Parry and Seconded by Councillor Cassidy 5.4 Minute Volume Index (Private) – 15 November 2022 – previously circulated for approval and noting and consideration of any recommendations contained therein. Proposed by Councillor Parry and Seconded by Councillor Cassidy 5.5 Midlothian Council Action Log 15 November 2022 - Noted 6. Questions to the Leader of the Council None 7. Notices of Motion None Page 6 of 390
Page 7
8. Reports Report No. Report Title Report by: 8.1 Draft Midlothian Council Strategic Plan 2023 - 2026 Chief Executive Outline of Report and Summary of Discussion The report dated 4 November 2022 presented the strategic options for future service aims building on the learning and new ways of working that were adopted during the pandemic period, and to renew our focus on delivering our key priorities at the most local level possible. Rooted in the creation of a wellbeing economy, the vision of our new 5 year strategy was committed to reducing inequalities in health outcomes, learning outcomes and economic circumstances while addressing the health of our planet. Dr Vickers presented this report highlighting the main sections contained within the report and advised that this had been discussed previously at the Business Transformation Steering Group prior to being reported to Council. Councillor Parry moved to accept the recommendations as set out in the report, this was seconded by Councillor Cassidy. Councillor Milligan advised that there had been much discussion on this paper and while he agreed with the vision he moved that this was continued until the agreed 5 year Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) was in place. He highlighted the importance of ensuring that the public were aware of all the challenges over the next 5 years and the services reductions that may be required in order to achieve a balance budget, given the challenging financial position faced by the Council. There followed a lengthy discussion with regards to Participatory Budget, Short Term Financial Strategy and the challenges the Council face over the next 5 years. Councillor Milligan, Seconded by Councillor Virgo moved for continuation of this this until the MTFS was agreed and the wording of the Participatory Budget process was clear. Councillor Parry acknowledged the comments made and emphasised that this was not about finalising but allowing the communities to have their say and enquired as to the impact this would have on the timescales of the consultation programme. Officers advised on the timescales and the issues that may arise if the consultation was over Christmas and if not approved at December Council the impact the delay would have on the Council Tax deadline. The Motion was proposed by Councillor Parry, seconded by Councillor Cassidy to accept the recommendations as set out in the report. As an Amendment Councillor Milligan, Seconded by Councillor Virgo moved for continuation until the MTFS was agreed and the wording of the Participatory Budget process was made clear. On a vote being taken 8 Members voted for the Motion to accept the recommendations as set out in the report and 9 voted for the Amendment for Page 7 of 390
Page 8
continuation until the Medium Term Financial Strategy was agreed and the wording of the Participatory Budget process was clear. Accordingly the Amendment became the decision of the Council. Decision The Council agreed to a continuation of the Draft Midlothian Council Strategic Plan 2023 - 2026 until the Medium Term Financial Strategy was agreed and that the wording of Participatory Budget process was clear. Action Chief Executive Report No. Report Title Report by: 8.2 Financial Monitoring 2022/23 – General Fund Revenue Chief Finance Officer (Acting up) Outline of Report and Summary of Discussion The purpose of this report dated 31 October 2022 was to provide Council with information on projections of performance against service revenue budgets in 2022/23 and to provide commentary on areas of material variance against budget. The projected budget performance figures as shown in Appendix 1 result in a net underspend of £1.442 million for the year which is a £1.667 million improvement on the position at Quarter 1 reported to Council on 23rd August. The projected underspend represents 0.54% of the revised budget. The projected General Fund balance at 31st March 2023 was £6.305 million, of which £0.265 million is earmarked for specific use. The projection of the General Fund Balance at 31st March 2023 was predicated on the ongoing financial impact of the Covid-19 Pandemic continuing to be met from the available funding, whether ring fenced for specific purposes, or from general funding provided Mr Gladwin in presenting this report highlighted the main sections contained within the report Councillors expressed their thanks to David Gladwin and the Finance team on this positive paper. In response to a question raised by Councillor Smaill, Councillor Parry advised that she was in ongoing discussions with COSLA looking at the financial framework and also meeting with Council Leaders to discuss these issues. Councillor Parry, seconded by Councillor Virgo moved to accept the recommendations. Decision The Council noted specifically the projected financial position for the General Fund Reserve in financial year 2022/23 and the associated risks with projections at this stage in the year; and otherwise noted the contents of the report. Page 8 of 390
Page 9
Report No. Report Title Report by: 8.3 General Services Capital Plan 2022/23 Quarter 2 Monitoring Report Chief Finance Officer (Acting up) Outline of Report and Summary of Discussion The purpose of this report, dated 3 November 2022 was to provide Council with an update of the General Services Capital Plan incorporating information on additions to the Capital Plan for approval (Section 3) and information on the projected performance against budget for 2022/23 (Section 4), also to update on the Capital Fund (Section 5). Mr Gladwin presented this report highlighting the main updates of the General Services Capital Plan. Councillor Parry formally moved the recommendations in the report commenting positively on some of the rephrased projects highlighted in the report. In response to concerns from Councillor Smaill regarding Capital Reserves, the Chief Finance Officer (acting up) advised that work was ongoing as a matter of priority and that this would be shared with Officers in the very near future. Decision The Council approved addition of the project budgets set out in Section 3.1 and noted the forecast outturn for expenditure (after reflecting rephased project budgets), funding and borrowing, as outlined in Section 4. Action Chief Finance Officer (Acting up) Report No. Report Title Report by: 8.4 Housing Revenue Account - Revenue Budget and Capital Plan 2022/23 Chief Finance Officer (Acting up) Outline of Report and Summary of Discussion The purpose of this report dated 26 October 2022 was to provide Council with a summary of expenditure and income to 26 September 2022 for the Capital Plan and a projected outturn for both the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) and Capital Plan for 2022/23. The summarised financial performance for 2022/23 was: • Capital Investment in the year totalling £53.842 million; • A net underspend of £0.171 million on the Revenue Account; • A projected HRA general reserve at 31st March 2023 of £32.264 million. Councillor Parry, seconded by Councillor McKenzie moved the recommendations contained within the paper noting the commitments to deliver in particular with regards to Dalkeith Town Centre. Mr Anderson in response to a question raised by Councillor Virgo with regards to the development of Dalkeith Town Centre provided an explanation on the additional cost of £20,000 to cover additional resources including further consultation, architectural resources and the phasing of the work. Page 9 of 390
Page 10
Responding to a further question raised by Councillor Smaill, Mr Anderson provided an explanation on the variations in housing stock and the challenges and additional pressures faced to meet the targets but a further updated report would be brought back to Council in due course. There followed a discussion with regards to the Council’s buy-back programme. Concerns were raised by Councillors with regards to the process and that Elderly residents require a more streamlined process. Councillors also expressed the need for the Council to buy back a range of houses to increase the Council stock. It was noted that Councillor McKenzie had requested Housing to look at a streamline process and it was agreed that a paper would come back at a later date on a more streamline process. Decision The Council : • Noted the contents of this report; • Approved the reallocation of the £10 million earmarked capital budget for Retrofit Fire Safety Sprinkler Systems to the New Social Housing Phase 3-4 project as covered in section 3.1 in the report. • Approved the release of a further £0.020m from the HRA Reserve to support the developing strategy for Dalkeith Town Centre. • To bring back a report on a more streamlined process for the Council’s buy- back programme. Action Executive Director Place Councillor Bowen having declared a non-pecuniary interest in the following item of business due to a family connection left the meeting at 11.46am. Report No. Report Title Report by: 8.5 Early Learning and Childcare Funding Rate 2022-23 Executive Director Children, Young People and Partnerships Outline of Report and Summary of Discussion Following the Council Briefing on 14 November 2022, this report seeks a decision to maintain the current rate paid to partner providers for 2 year olds, whilst applying an increase to the 3-5 year old funding rate from August 2022 for the 2022/23 financial year, which can be funded from existing carry-forward. With the Scottish Government’s (SG) funding methodology for ELC for 2023/24 onwards unavailable and the 2022/23 funding gap estimated to be circa £11.084m, it is recommended that the future rate be determined once the SG’s funding settlement is known. Ms Robertson presented this report highlighting some of the main points contained within the report and in Appendix A to the report. Councillor Parry acknowledged how valuable all provision was in Midlothian and noted that in the local benchmarking comparisons Midlothian was at the top or nearest to the top. Councillor Parry moved the recommendations as set out in the report. Page 10 of 390
Page 11
There followed a lengthy discussion in which Officers responded to various questions on the Scottish Government funding, the increased rate being sustainable and although the Council was one of the fastest growing Local Authorities was underfunded. Also raised the 1140 hours from the Scottish Government and was this treated equally between Local Authorities and the Private Sector. Ms Robertson advised that Dr Mary Smith had written in the past regarding the funding received and the response received did recognise it caused substantive challenges to growing populations and she was happy to refer back to the Scottish Government on this matter. Mr Gladwin confirmed that there is a National Working Group (Early Learning) which are working through the details and coming up with the best and fairest methodology. Councillor Parry, seconded by Councillor Scott moved the recommendations as set out in the report. Councillor Smaill abstained from this decision. Decision The Council agreed to : • Maintain the current 2 year old rate of £6.90, whilst increasing the 3-5 year old rate from £5.71 to £6.42 for both funded providers and childminders delivering Early Learning and Childcare (ELC). • Backdate the increase in 3-5s rate to August 2022. • Give delegated authority to the Executive Director (Children, Young People and Partnerships) to write to the Scottish Government (SG), on behalf of Council, to seek clarity on future funding and assurance that the SG will provide the necessary funds to allow Midlothian to pay funded providers a sustainable rate. • Review the funding rates for 2023/24 once the funding allocation from the Scottish Government is confirmed. Action Executive Director, Executive Director Children, Young People and Partnerships Councillor Bowen re-joined the meeting at the conclusion of the foregoing item at 12.21pm. Report No. Report Title Report by: 8.6 Appointment of Representatives to Outside Bodies – Midlothian Twinning Association Executive Director Place Outline of Report and Summary of Discussion At its meeting of 24 May 2022, Council approved the appointment of Councillor Debbie McCall, Provost; Councillor Peter Smaill and Councillor Margo Russell to the Midlothian Twinning Association. Four places are available to the Council on the Midlothian Twinning Association. Page 11 of 390
Page 12
Mr Anderson presented this report to the Committee advising that the Midlothian Twinning Association office bearers requested the Council to consider the appointment of a named additional member for the available remaining place. Councillor Parry, seconded by Councillor Cassidy nominated Councillor McManus There being no other nominations Councillor McManus accepted the appointment. Decision Councillor McManus was nominated as the additional named member on the Midlothian Twinning Association. Action Democratic Services Report No. Report Title Report by: 8.7 Social Work Annual Report 2021-2022 Chief Social Work Officer Outline of Report and Summary of Discussion The purpose of this report was to provide Council and the IJB with the Annual report of the Chief Social Work Officer (CSWO). The shortened report provides both Council and the IJB with a high level overview of key issues and challenges as a result of Covid-19. Ms Tranent, Chief Social Work Officer presented this report highlighting this provides a high level overview of some of the great work undertaken despite the continued challenges that Social Work and Social Care staff faced as Covid-19 remained a very live and current issue. Councillor McKenzie, seconded by Councillor Scott moved the report. The Provost expressed her thanks and congratulations to the Community Justice team who won their category ‘Excellence in Justice Services’ at the Scottish Social Services Awards. Decision The Council noted the Chief Social Work Officer’s Annual Report for 2021-22 and agreed that the Chief Social Work Officer should place a copy of the Annual report on the Council website. Action Chief Social Work Officer Report No. Report Title Report by: 8.8 Midlothian Strategic Housing Investment Plan 2023_24 to 2027_28 Executive Director Place Outline of Report and Summary of Discussion The report dated 14 November 2022 provides a summary of the key points set out in Midlothian’s Strategic Housing Investment Plan (SHIP) 2023-28, which details the priorities for investment in new affordable housing in Midlothian. Page 12 of 390
Page 13
Mr Anderson advised that this report seeks Members approval of the Strategic Housing Investment Plan (SHIP) 2023/24 – 2027/28 which is appended to the report and has been submitted to the Scottish Government on 28 October 2022 in order to meet the required deadline, with the proviso this was subject to approval by Council. Councillor McKenzie moved to approve the Strategic Housing Investment Plan (SHIP). Councillor Curran requested that next year this is brought to Council in advance of being presented to the Scottish Government. Thereafter Mr Anderson responded to questions and comments with regards to rent freeze and the impact this would have on house builds and future developments. Also raised was the Council’s land supply and Mr Anderson confirmed this was a diminishing resource. It was also noted that another issue was the availability of labour for building houses. The report was moved by Councillor McKenzie, seconded by Councillor Bowen. Decision The Council approved the Strategic Housing Investment Plan (SHIP) 2023/24- 2027/28. Action Executive Director Place Report No. Report Title Report by: 8.9 Capacity increase to Replacement Beeslack CHS Executive Director Children, Young People and Partnerships Outline of Report and Summary of Discussion A report dated 20 October 2022 was submitted advising that at full Council on 28 June 2022, updated Heads of Terms were approved, with regards to securing the site, for the Replacement Beeslack CHS. If the replacement school is built to the current proposal of a 1200 capacity school our roll projections show that a further extension would be required within two years of the school opening. The current design of the 1200 pupil capacity school includes core accommodation – such as gym halls, dining and all social spaces - to accommodate 1600 pupils. A full business case with detailed financial costs will be brought back to December Council. Approval is now being sought to increase the indicated capacity of the new school building from 1200 pupils to 1600 pupils. Mr Turpie confirmed that it was not required to suspend Standing Orders as new information was submitted with regards to the increase in the capacity of the new school. Ms Robertson thanked Councillors who attended the briefing meeting and presented this report for approval. Councillor Scott supported this paper and moved the recommendation as contained within the report. Councillor Parry seconded the recommendation and Page 13 of 390
Page 14
expressed her thanks to the Education colleagues reacting to the new information received. Ms Robertson in response to a question raised by Councillor Smaill confirmed that the funding for this school would be 50/50. Decision The Council approved the increase in capacity for the Replacement Beeslack Community High School from 1200 pupils to 1600 pupils. Action Executive Director, Children, Young People and Partnerships Report No. Report Title Report by: 8.10 Proposed Revised Schedule of meeting dates January to June 2023 Executive Director Place Outline of Report and Summary of Discussion At the meeting of Council on 24 May 2022 it was proposed that a short life working group review the schedule of dates. The schedule of dates have been reviewed by Democratic Services taking into consideration school holidays and this revised proposed schedule is now presented to Council for consideration. Mr Anderson presented this report dated 25 October 2022 for approval. The Provost highlighted the importance of having the school holidays detailed with the schedule of meeting dates. Councillor Parry, seconded by Councillor Cassidy approved the Schedule of meeting dates January to June 2023. Decision The Council approved the Revised Schedule of Meeting Dates for January – June 2023 as detailed in Appendix B. Action Democratic Services Report No. Report Title Report by: 8.11 Webcasting Meetings of Council and its Committees Executive Director Place Outline of Report and Summary of Discussion Special Council held on 27 September 2022 decided to proceed with an in-person Council meeting of 4 October 2022 and thereafter the range of public governance meetings for Council, Cabinet and its established Committees. For this schedule of meetings, these have been live streamed or recorded for available broadcast to members of the public. Council are asked to consider the current arrangements and determine what the interim broadcasting approach should be whilst awaiting the implementation of a technical solution for hybrid meetings, anticipated by March 2023. Page 14 of 390
Page 15
Mr Anderson presented this report highlighting the background to the report and the current arrangements in place and to consider the whether this revised arrangements should continue or if some meetings should be webcast and to consider the three options as set out in the report. Mr Anderson advised that these were interim arrangements and provided details of costs as presented previously to Council on the hybrid options and the costs for the current arrangements as £66,000 towards Capital and £62,000 in respect of Revenue giving a totality of £128,000. Councillor Parry moved for Option 1 and highlighted the benefit to the public in being able to watch and engage in our meetings, this was seconded by Councillor Cassidy. Councillor Milligan highlighted that at the meeting on 27 September 2022 only one in person meeting was agreed and there was no decision on the costings as detailed. He highlighted the costs were not acceptable with the financial challenges the Council are facing and moved to reject any webcasting with this cost and revert back to the previous arrangements where recordings are uploaded following the meeting. There followed a lengthy discussion regarding what had been agreed at Council with regards to in person meetings, webcasting and the costs as outlined and the recommendation that had been agreed. During the discussion Mr Anderson confirmed that no purchase order had been raised therefore there was no commitment to costs at this stage. Councillor Parry highlighted that there was clarification made that it was public facing meetings but if there are concerns an additional option is to take back to Standing Orders working group/ Group Leaders to ensure there is clarity with regards to webcasting. In responding to a comment from Councillor Milligan with regards to the recommendation on 27 September 2022, Mr Turpie confirmed that at the meeting on the 27 September the decision was to allow a face to face meeting of Council on 4 October 2022 however there was discussion around the costs of hybrid meeting and revenue costs and capitalisation which was noted. He further advised that hybrid meetings were put off due to the costs. It was also noted that there was a Short Life Working group where a lot of the detail was discussed at great length. Mr Turpie also provided clarity on what would be broadcast and highlighted that private items would not be broadcast to the public and only matters which the public can have access would be broadcast. Following further discussion it was noted that meetings had to go ahead therefore it was agreed that this would be discussed further at the Cross Party Standing Orders Working Group and that an Officer would be delegated to implement the decision relative to which meetings were to be broadcast. It was also agreed that the decision with regards to hybrid meetings would be brought back to Council with the relative costs. Decision It was agreed that this would be discussed further at the Cross Party Standing Orders Working Group and that an Officer would be delegated to implement the decision regarding which meetings were to be broadcast. It was also agreed that the decision with regards to Hybrid meetings would be brought back to Council with the relative costs. Action Cross Party Standing Orders Working Group/Executive Director Place/Democratic Services Page 15 of 390
Page 16
The Provost highlighted the white ribbons which were worn in the Chambers today and advised that this was to raise awareness on the upcoming White Ribbon day which focusses on a campaign for men to end violence against women and anyone wishing to sign this can do so on the Council’s Website. Exclusion of Members of the Public In view of the nature of the business to be transacted, the Committee agreed that the public be excluded from the meeting during discussion of the undernoted item, as contained in the Addendum hereto, as there might be disclosed exempt information as defined in paragraph 1 of Part I of Schedule 7A to the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973:- 9. Private Reports Report No. Report Title Report by: 9.1 Appointment of Interim Chief Officer Corporate Solutions Executive Director Place Decision The Council unanimously agreed to – (a) Note the recommendation of the Appointments Panel of elected Members which convened on 24th October, 2022 in the matter of the recruitment of an Interim Chief Officer Corporate Solutions, and (b) Approved the appointment of Saty Kaur as the Interim Chief Officer Corporate Solutions. Action Executive Director Place Report No. Report Title Report by: 9.2 Poltonhall Artificial Pitches Refurbishment and Extension Budget Expenditure Update Executive Director Place Decision After further discussion, the Council unanimously agreed to – (a) Note the projected funding deficit for this project and the detailed reasons for this; and (b) Approve additional funding of £142,532 to address the shortfall via the use of available, additional developer contributions as outlined in this report. Action Executive Director Place 9. Date of Next Meeting The Next meeting will be held on Tuesday 13 December 2022 at 11 am The meeting concluded at 1.37 pm Page 16 of 390
Page 17
Midlothian Council Minute Volume Presented to the Meeting of Midlothian Council on Tuesday, 13 December 2022 Page 17 of 390
Page 18
1 Minutes of Meetings submitted for Approval No items for discussion 2 Minutes of Meetings submitted for Consideration Minute for Consideration Minute of Cabinet - 18 October 2022 3 - 6 PRIVATE Business Transformation Steering Group 26 October 2022 PRIVATE Special Business Transformation Steering Group 28 September 2022 Planning Minute of the Meeting of 11 October 2022_public 7 - 14 Police and Fire and Rescue Board 29 August 2022 15 - 18 3 Minutes of Meetings submitted for Information Minute for Information Page 18 of 390
Page 19
Action Log No Subject Date Action Action Owner Expected completion date Comments 1 Minute action - prospective crematorium development. 16/11/2021 Scope potential suitable sites for prospective crematorium development. Chief Officer Place February 2023 Report scheduled for February 2023 Council. 2 Motion Amendment – Loanhead Football Club 16/11/2021 Update the Sports Needs Assessment from 2016 and report to future council meeting Head of Adult Social Care/ Sport & Leisure Manager December 2022 Anticipated the report will be available at the end of year. 3 Motion - Infrastructure 14/12/2021 Report to Council Strategic Investment Framework Executive Director Place TBC Strategic Infrastructure Investment Framework 2nd stage review has commenced and full report shall be presented to Council when completed and available. 4 Minute Action - CCTV 14/12/2021 To Provide a Report outlining an expansion of sites for CCTV Chief Officer Place February 2023 Phase 1 Procurement & progressed. Phase 2 expansion needs further consideration with a report anticipated for February 2023 Council Midlothian Council 13 December 2022 Item Page 19 of 390
Page 20
No Subject Date Action Action Owner Expected completion date Comments 5 Minute Action – Improving Energy efficiency by tackling Dampness, Condensation and improving ventilation 15/02/2022 Provide a Report to Council Additional Report – Update on Current Housing Stock that will not meet Energy Efficiency Targets Chief Officer Place February 2023 Work progressing. EESSH2 Report scheduled for February 2023 Council. 6 Arm’s Length Company to Manage Industrial Sites in Midlothian 28/06/2022 Explore and outline process for creating an Arm’s length company Head of Development February 2023 Report scheduled for February 2023 Council in Financial Strategy options 7 Briefing - Trauma Informed practice 23/08/2022 Members Briefing on Trauma Practice and Mental Health First Aid Head of Adult Services TBC Trauma training will be arranged when Trauma Lead is in post (recruitment currently in process). Mental Health Training can be provided by Health in Mid who can design bespoke half day training for elected members. Confirmation of date required and then can be arranged with Health in Mind. 8 Quality Scoping Report 23/08/2022 On the quality of builds over the last 10 years comparing all tendered projects including with those of HUB Executive Director Place TBC Peer Review of Hub SE tender process completed. Separate commission procured for wider scope Page 20 of 390
Page 21
No Subject Date Action Action Owner Expected completion date Comments SE schools review since commenced. 9 Midlothian Cares Practical Support Measures Identified Report 04/10/2022 Audit of funding distribution report Strategic Service Re-Design Manager November 2022 Page 21 of 390
Page 22
Page 22 of 390
Page 23
Midlothian Council Tuesday 13 December 2022 Notice of Motion Midlothian council congratulates Gorebridge Gala day as it gears up to its centenary celebration in June 2023, and agrees to support the communities great milestone celebrations in the same way it supported other local gala’s celebrating their centenary. Gala days bring communities together sharing in the history of their village and attract all within the county to share in joyous festivities. Midlothian council would like to thank and congratulate all past and present members of Gorebridge gala day committee for their dedication and hard work to ensure the success and longevity of this wonderful community event. Therefore this council agrees: To fund the gala to the amount of £10,000 and agrees to help with any additional resources available to make the centenary celebrations of Gorebridge Gala Day a landmark occasion. Moved: Councillor Kelly Drummond Seconded: Councillor Russell Imrie Item 7.1 Page 23 of 390
Page 24
Page 24 of 390
Page 25
Midlothian Council 13th December 2022 Notice of Motion Midlothian Council notes that research has shown that footballers are three and a half times more likely to die of Neurodegenerative diseases and have a five –fold risk of developing Alzheimer’s. Midlothian Council recognises the importance for sports governing bodies to take action to protect those currently involved in the game. The game welcomes the campaign by PFA Scotland and GMB and other organisations on this issue and believes that a neurodegenerative condition should be classified as an industrial injury. Midlothian council agrees and will write to the Minister for Social Security and Local Government urging that they take the necessary steps now to ensure footballers and other sports persons in Scotland who have neurodegenerative conditions can access the industrial Disablement Benefit or its equivalent when this is Devolved to Scotland. Moved: Councillor Willie McEwan Seconded: Councillor Kelly Drummond Page 25 of 390
Page 26
Page 26 of 390
Page 27
Midlothian Council 13 December 2022 Item 7.3 SNP Motion Motion - Midlothian Council congratulates Penicuik Athletic Youth Football Club under 16 girls on their magnificent achievement on the league and cup double; notes that the team are currently unbeaten in the South East Joelle Murray League and have won the league for the second year in a row; understands that the team won the Scottish Cup winning against Giffnock 3-1 on 20 November 2022; believes that the team are a fantastic example to younger girls in the game; recognises the hard work of the coaches who volunteer a substantial amount of their time and wishes them all well for their future endeavours. Moved Seconded Councillor Debbi McCall Councillor Connor McManus Page 27 of 390
Page 28
Page 28 of 390
Page 29
Midlothian Council 13 December 2022 Item 7.4 Motion - Danderhall & District Guerrilla Gardeners Midlothian Council congratulates Danderhall & District Guerrilla Gardeners on their recent Keep Scotland Tidy award-winning entry. Of the 48 entrants, the Gardeners won the judges’ discretionary award for Best in Scotland and were presented with the David Welch Memorial Trophy for the Child Miner Memorial site at The Wisp, Danderhall. Additionally, they were also awarded the Silver Medal for their wider efforts in the community, including their school programme. Council agrees that the Chief Executive write to Danderhall & District Guerrillas Gardeners, passing on our congratulations and expressing our gratitude for their ongoing volunteering efforts in the community. Moved Councillor Colin Cassidy Seconded Councillor Stephen Curran Page 29 of 390
Page 30
Page 30 of 390
Page 31
Midlothian Council Tuesday 13 December 2022 Item 8.1 Medium Term Financial Strategy – 2023/24 to 2027/28 Report by David Gladwin, Acting Chief Financial Officer Report for Noting 1 Recommendations a) Note that the work of The Business Transformation Steering Group (BTSG) will continue to consider savings measures necessary to support delivery of a balanced budget for 2023/24 before any policy measures are presented to Council; b) Note that the financial outlook remains challenging for this term of Council c) Note the recommendation of the external Auditor that, “as a matter of urgency, officers and elected members need to work together to develop and agree the medium-term financial strategy and progress the Council’s transformation plans”. d) Note the timetable for the draft Scottish Government budget and associated grant settlement for Councils; e) Note the update in respect of fiscal flexibilities; f) Note that the projected budget gap for 2023/24 is £12.982 million rising to a projected £25.052 million by 2027/28 and that officer work is well underway to prepare a draft base budget for 2023/24 which will bring more certainty than existing projections; g) Due to timescales, and the magnitude of the financial challenge to set a 2023/24 budget, Council is recommended to hold a Special meeting of Council prior to the next scheduled February Council meeting h) Otherwise, note the remainder of the report. Date: 30 November 2022 Report Contact: David Gladwin, Acting Chief Financial Officer David.gladwin@midlothian.gov.uk 0131 271 3113 Page 31 of 390
Page 32
2 2 Purpose of Report / Executive Summary 2.1 The purpose of this report is to provide Council with latest projections of future year budget gaps in advance of completing base budget work for 2023/24 and to outline a timetable through to setting Council Tax and a balanced budget for 2023/24 on Tuesday 21st February 2023. 2.2 The projected budget gap for 2023/24 is £12.982 million rising to £25.052 million by 2027/28. 3 Medium Term Financial Strategy 2023/24 to 2027/28 - Background 3.1 Council last considered an update on its Medium Term Financial Strategy on 4th October 2022 where operational savings of £1.227m in 2023/24 rising to £1.912m in 2027/28 were noted alongside the following: • Adoption of a range of additional transformation focused activity; • Continuation of BTSG considering measures to support delivery of a balanced budget before any policy measures are presented to Council; and • A very challenging financial outlook for this term of Council. 3.2 The pandemic has accelerated financial challenges and there are some difficult choices ahead as Midlothian Council try to deliver services within available budget alongside sustained demographic growth from being the fastest growing local authority in Scotland. As a result, there is a significant funding gap that will impact on what services the Council can continue to deliver and how they are delivered. Reprioritisation and redesign is crucial to balancing the financial position. Budget Projections 3.3 At its meeting on 4th October, Council was provided with an update of the budget projections for financial years 2023/24 to 2027/28. These projections were based on key assumptions on pay inflation and contractual inflation, government grant and Council Tax and included and reflected an assessment of the Scottish Government’s Resource Spending Review published on 31 May 2022. 3.4 The impact of inflation and pay pressures in the current and future years remains fluid and best estimates are being included in ongoing base budget work which also picks up demographic pressures. 3.5 The current year’s budget as approved on 15th February 2022 was reliant on £10.283m of one-off funding measures as presented in table 1 below. Council on 23rd August 2022 approved a supplementary estimate of £1.395m in 2022/23 to cover unbudgeted inflationary pressures. This was partially offset by the full year impact of reversing the Employers National Insurance increase. Page 32 of 390
Page 33
3 Table 1: Underlying budget gap for 2022/23 One-off Measures in 2022/23 Budget £m £m Use of Reserves Utilisation of uncommitted earmarked reserves 2.000 Utilisation of general reserves 0.250 2.250 One-off utilisation of COVID funding (to mitigate savings plans) 1.675 Deferment of debt repayments in 2021/22 and 2022/23 Loans Fund Review to meet repayments in 22/23 (max) 3.032 From use of Fiscal Flexibility (Loans Fund Repayment Holiday) and utilise Loans Fund Review both in 21/22 (max) 3.326 6.358 Non Recurring Expenditure (0.250) Impact of 22/23 contractual inflation – Energy and PPP – approved by Council on 23rd August 2022 1.395 Impact of reversal of Employers NI increase (full year effect) (1.130) Underlying Budget Gap for 2022/23 10.298 3.6 The projections for future years as shown in table 2 below are predicted on assumptions related to Scottish Government Grant, pay and other inflation and Council Tax growth. They also assume continuation of the current structure of public services in Scotland. Table 2: Financial Outlook 2023/24 to 2027/28 – Analysis of Change 2023/24 £m 2024/25 £m 2025/26 £m 2026/27 £m 2027/28 £m Opening gap for the year 10.298 12.982 16.651 20.333 22.522 Budget Changes Staffing – pay inflation and salary progression 3.881 3.977 4.077 4.179 4.283 Contractual inflation and indexation 1.072 1.099 1.126 1.154 1.183 Loan Charges 0.568 0.250 0.250 0.250 0.250 Energy Inflation based on November pricing information 2.200 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Service Concessions – in year adjustment (2.336) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 Other (0.011) (0.011) (0.011) (0.011) (0.011) Gross Expenditure Increases 5.374 5.315 5.442 5.572 5.704 Council Tax – Property Growth (1.350) (1.350) (1.350) (1.350) (1.350) Scottish Government Grant (0.113) (0.115) (0.118) (1.821) (1.824) Gross Income Increases (1.463) (1.465) (1.468) (3.171) (3.174) Budget Gap to Address 14.209 16.832 20.625 22.734 25.052 Operational savings measures (1.227) (0.181) (0.292) (0.212) (0.000) Budget Gap 12.982 16.651 20.333 22.522 25.052 3.7 Council Tax income shown in projections is based on the existing Band D Council Tax of £1,442.60. Scottish Government Grant Settlement 3.8 The Scottish Government’s budget is scheduled for publication on Thursday 15th December 2022 and will set out aggregate figures for both Local Government Capital and Revenue Funding. The Local Page 33 of 390
Page 34
4 Government Finance Circular, which provides individual Councils with details of funding share is expected to be released on Monday 19th December. 3.9 Thereafter, the budget bill will follow parliamentary process with final endorsement anticipated during February. In light of the co-operation agreement involving the Scottish Green Party it is not expected that there will be any material change to the Local Government settlement during the passage of the bill. 3.10 The draft base budget will be updated to reflect the actual Scottish Government Grant settlement, specific conditions within the settlement, public sector pay policy and the extent to which funds for Health and Social Care are directed to Integration Joint Boards. Fiscal Flexibilities 3.11 Work continues between the Finance team and the Council’s Treasury advisers Link Group to fully evaluate any change in the accounting treatment and associated financial provisions arising from the Service Concession flexibility based on revised statutory guidance now finalised. An evaluation of options in the context of prudent application of guidance and an assessment of the impact on the Medium Term Financial Strategy will be completed. Engagement will then follow with Audit Scotland, the Council’s newly appointed auditor before briefing Council in advance of presenting recommendations to full Council. 3.12 Projections set out in this report assume an in-year adjustment in 2023/24 of £2.336 million from the application of the flexibility. Whilst it is not possible to be explicit on timescales for completing this work it is being afforded a very high priority with a planned outcome early in 2023. Medium Term Financial Strategy Savings Measures 3.13 The Corporate Management Team are continuing to develop measures which could be implemented to reduce projected budget gaps. There continues to be extensive engagement on these measures with elected members primarily through the Business Transformation Steering Group. 3.14 Accompanying individual service measures are a range of transformation projects as outlined to Council in October. Business cases have been drafted for each programme and initial work will focus on assessing the impact each may have on the existing budget and service provision. 3.15 In addition to savings measures, members should note that each 1% or £14.42 per annum increase in Band D Council Tax would generate circa £580,000 per annum in additional income. Page 34 of 390
Page 35
5 4 Next Steps Engagement 4.1 Once savings proposals are granted Member support public engagement will be considered. Engagement continues with the recognised Trade Unions who have been kept abreast of the recommendations contained in this report. Finalisation of the 2023/4 Budget and Setting Council Tax 4.2 In light of the unique circumstances of later timescales and the severity of financial pressures facing the Council in setting the 2023/24 budget it is considered prudent to plan for an additional Council Meeting in January which will be preceded by scheduled meetings of the Business Transformation Steering Group. 4.3 Council will meet on 21st February to finalise the 2023/24 budget. Midlothian Integration Joint Board (MIJB) 4.4 The Chief Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Midlothian Integrated Joint Board (IJB) are being kept updated on the Council’s budget position and are engaged in the development of the Medium Term Financial Strategy. 4.5 The indicative budget to be delegated to MIJB for 2023/24 together with future years indicative allocations have been developed based on the 2022/23 position of cash flat plus additional Scottish Government funding. However, it will only be possible to make a formal offer to MIJB once the annual grant settlement is available and the quantum of any additional minimum funding requirements set out by Scottish Government are clear. 4.6 Business Transformation Steering Group will be asked to consider the formal offer arising from the settlement when it meets in January 2023 and this will form part of the final budget recommendations to Council. Governance and Timetable 4.7 Responsibility for setting Council Tax and determining budgets sits with Council. Council has a duty as set out in Section 93 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (as amended) to set its Council Tax and a balanced budget for the following financial year commencing 1 April by 11 March. 4.8 Members should note that the legislation contains no specific requirement for a Council to set its budget at the same time as setting its Council Tax. This is because it is implicit in setting the Council Tax that Council Tax income needs to be sufficient to fund the balance of expenditure not otherwise funded from government grant, fees, reserves etc. Page 35 of 390
Page 36
6 4.9 As Council Tax funds the gap between expected income and expenditure, it is necessary to first identify the proposed expenditure to determine the resulting gap that Council Tax needs to fund. If no other action is taken to redress any shortfall, then the Council Tax has to be set at a rate that will do so, otherwise the budget will not balance. Accordingly, Council Tax decisions cannot be taken in advance of other budget decisions. 4.10 Members should also continue to note that in terms of Section 112 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (as amended) it is an offence for members to participate in any vote in respect of setting Council Tax where the member has unpaid Council Tax. Accordingly, at the Council meeting where these decisions are formally taken, members would be required to disclose the fact if this section of the act applies to them and subsequently not vote on any question with respect to the matter. 5 Report Implications (Resource, Digital and Risk) Resource 5.1 Whilst this report deals with financial issues there are no financial implications arising directly from it. Digital 5.2 The adoption of digital solutions is a central strand of the Medium Term Financial Strategy. Risk 5.3 Within any financial projections, there are a number of inherent assumptions in arriving at figures and setting budget. Therefore risks exist if costs change or new pressures emerge. The following key risks and issues are highlighted in the context of this report: • Uncertainly over the Scottish Government’s and Council’s financial position; • The economic outlook and decision by Scottish Government on future years grant settlements and grant distribution; • The risk to service provision and service users associated with a continued decline in available resources to fund services; • Future years Public Sector pay policy and current and future year pay award settlements; • Actual school rolls varying from those provided for in the budget; • The impact of the wider economic climate on range of factors including: inflation, interest rates, employment, tax and income levels and service demands; • Cost pressures, particularly demographic demand, exceeding budget estimates; Page 36 of 390
Page 37
7 • The reform of public services and the implications for the National Care Service (Scotland) Bill; • The impact of Universal Credit, and potential pension changes; • The costs of implementation of national policies varying from the resources provided by Government; • Potential liabilities arising from historic child abuse; • Unplanned capital investment requirements and the associated cost; and • Ability to continue to meet the expectations of our communities within a period of fiscal constraint. 5.4 Developing a Medium Term Financial Strategy is important and can support the mitigation of a number of these risks by setting out the key assumptions on which forward plans are based. The consequences of the challenging grant settlement parameters mean that it is also necessary to bring forward measures to secure financial balance over the period covered by the Medium Term Financial Strategy. 5.5 The risk of not having in place a balanced Medium Term Financial Strategy is the potential elimination of available reserves, which in turn would severely limit the Council’s ability to deal with unforeseen or unplanned events and also the imposition of significant cuts at short notice with limited opportunity for consultation. Ensuring Equalities 5.6 The strategic plan and associated Medium Term Financial Strategy together with the resource allocation measures which will support financial sustainability will, as far as the constraint on resources allow, be developed within the context of the Council’s priorities, ensuring as far as possible that resources are directed towards the key priorities of reducing inequalities in learning, health and economic circumstance outcomes. 5.7 The Strategic Plan and associated Medium Term Financial Strategy will continue, as far as is possible, to reflect Midlothian Council’s commitment to the ethos of the Equality Act 2010 with careful consideration of the interests of the most vulnerable in our communities through the preparation of equality impact assessments. 5.8 In addition, the Strategic Plan will underline the Council’s commitment in its Equality Plan to tackle inequality and promote inclusion within the limitations of the resources available. It will also allow the Council to plan and deliver services which meet the needs of our diverse communities and respond to the changes ahead. 5.9 Individual EQIA’s will be published in respect of future policy savings measures and an overarching EQIA will be published alongside the Medium Term Financial Strategy report presented to the Council meeting in February 2023. Additional Report Implications Page 37 of 390
Page 38
8 See Appendix A Appendices APPENDIX A – Report Implications Page 38 of 390
Page 39
Appendix A A.1 Key Priorities within the Single Midlothian Plan The Strategic Plan and associated Medium Term Financial Strategy facilitates decisions on how Council allocates and uses its available resources and as such has fundamental implications for delivery of the key priorities in the Single Midlothian Plan. It helps ensure that resources are available to continue to delivery key priorities. A.2 Key Drivers for Change Key drivers addressed in this report: Holistic Working Hub and Spoke Modern Sustainable Transformational Preventative Asset-based Continuous Improvement One size fits one None of the above A.3 Key Delivery Streams Key delivery streams addressed in this report: One Council Working with you, for you Preventative and Sustainable Efficient and Modern Innovative and Ambitious None of the above A.4 Delivering Best Value The report does not directly impact on delivering Best Value. A.5 Involving Communities and Other Stakeholders The development of the Strategic Plan and associated Medium Term Financial Strategy provides for public engagement. In addition, there has been and will continue to be, engagement with the recognised Trade Unions on the Council’s financial position and the development of the Strategic Plan and associated Medium Term Financial Strategy. A.6 Impact on Performance and Outcomes The Strategic Plan and associated Medium Term Financial Strategy facilitates decisions on how the Council allocates and uses its available resources and as such has fundamental implications for service performance and outcomes. The financial consequences of the pandemic have impacted on the availability and allocation of resources in pursuit of key outcomes as set out in the Single Midlothian Plan for both the immediate and longer term and therefore the ability of the Council to continue to deliver services in a financial sustainable manner. Page 39 of 390
Page 40
10 A.7 Adopting a Preventative Approach An effective Strategic plan supported by a Medium Term Financial Strategy will support the prioritisation of resources to support prevention activities. A.8 Supporting Sustainable Development There are no direct sustainability issues arising from this report and we will work to mitigate any sustainability issues which arise as a consequence of the Strategic Plan and associated Medium Term Financial Strategy. Page 40 of 390
Page 41
Midlothian Council Tuesday 13 December 2022 Item No: 8.2 Treasury Management Mid-Year Review Report 2022/23 Report by David Gladwin, Acting Chief Financial Officer Report for Noting 1 Recommendations Council is recommended to:- a) Note the report and the treasury activity undertaken in the period to 30 September 2022, as outlined in Section 5; b) Note the actual and forecast activity during the second-half of the year as outlined in Section 6; c) Note the technical revisions to the Prudential Indicators in Section 7 of this report. d) Note that the Audit Committee have reviewed the Council’s Treasury Management Practices, a copy of which is placed in the Member’s Library, and that a session will be set up with Audit Committee Members to undertake a self-assessment in line with the toolkit published by CIPFA and attached as appendix 6. 2 Purpose of Report/Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to inform Council of the Treasury Management activity undertaken during the first half of 2022/23 and the forecast activity for the second half of 2022/23 in accordance with the Treasury Management and Annual Investment Strategy approved in February 2022. It also provides an update to the Treasury and Prudential Indicators for 2022/23. Council should note that in accordance with the Prudential Code, a draft of the report was considered by Audit Committee on 6 December, with the report approved by Audit Committee as presented. Date: 6 December 2022 Report Contact: Gary Thomson, Senior Finance Business Partner gary.thomson@midlothian.gov.uk 0131-271-3230 Page 41 of 390
Page 42
2 3 Background Governance The Prudential Code recommends that the main Treasury Management reports are presented for scrutiny by Audit Committee in advance of consideration by Council. This report was presented to Audit Committee on 6 December 2022 for consideration prior to being presented to this meeting of Council on 13 December 2022, with the report approved by Audit Committee as presented. Treasury management Treasury management is defined in the Prudential Code as: “The management of the local authority’s borrowing, investments and cash flows, its banking, money market and capital market transactions; the effective control of the risks associated with those activities; and the pursuit of optimum performance consistent with those risks.” The main function of the treasury management service is the funding of the Council’s capital investment plans. These capital plans provide a guide to the borrowing need of the Council, essentially the longer term cash flow planning to ensure the Council can meet its capital spending operations. This management of this long term borrowing requirement involves arranging long or short term loans or using cash balances; and on occasion any debt previously drawn may be restructured to meet Council risk or cost objectives. As the Council operates a balanced budget, this broadly means cash raised during the year will meet its cash expenditure. As part of the treasury management operations, officers ensure this cash flow is adequately planned, with available cash balances being deposited in low risk counterparties, providing adequate liquidity initially before considering optimising return on deposits. Council, on 15 February 2022, approved the Treasury Management and Annual Investment Strategy Statement for the financial year 2022/23. 4 Economic update for first half of 2022/23 An economic update for the first part of the 2022/23 financial year is included as Appendix 1. PWLB borrowing rates for the first half of the year are outlined in Appendix 2, and Bank Rate / SONIA rates for the first half of the year are outlined in Appendix 3. Page 42 of 390
Page 43
3 5 Treasury Activity during first half of 2022/23 The main points arising from treasury activity in the year to 30 September 2022 were:- • Long term borrowing of £0.433 million matured, this £0.327 million of Market Loans, £0.083 million of Salix loans and £0.023 million PWLB Annuities; • £90.000 million of new funds on deposit were placed with high credit-worthy banks, with approved counterparties in line with the 2022-23 Treasury Management and Annual Investment Strategy approved by Council on 15 February 2022; • The average interest rate earned on external funds on deposit in the first half of the year was 1.37%, exceeding the benchmark rate of 1.01%. Loan Portfolio The Council’s loan portfolio as at 30 September 2022 is shown in table 1 below (position at 31 March 2022 also shown for comparison):- Table 1: Council’s Loan Portfolio at 31 March 2022 and 30 September 2022. Loan Type 31 March 2022 30 September 2022 Principal Outstanding £000’s Weighted Average Rate Principal Outstanding £000’s Weighted Average Rate % PWLB Annuity 553 8.91% 530 8.91% PWLB Maturity 284,776 2.92% 284,776 2.92% LOBO 20,000 4.51% 20,000 4.51% Market Loans 17,542 2.68% 17,215 2.68% Temporary Market Loans 0 n/a 0 n/a Other Loans 400 0.00% 317 0.00% Total Loans 323,271 3.02% 322,838 3.01% Underlying Borrowing Requirement* 307,247 319,801 Future Years’ Borrowing Requirement Fully Financed (Over Borrowed) 16,024 3,037 * The Underlying Borrowing Requirement is the Capital Financing Requirement excluding the “Public Private Finance” (PPP) Contract Liabilities At 30 September 2022 the Council was over borrowed by £3.037 million (0.95%) – this is the extent to which the Council has financed its current and future borrowing requirement from long term loans. This position reflects the Council’s £50.000 million long-term borrowing undertaken in December 2021 at historically low PWLB rates of 1.26%-1.36% to forward finance borrowing arising from the Council’s capital plans. Page 43 of 390
Page 44
4 As can be seen from PWLB rates during the first half of 2022/23 (ranging from a low of 2.52% to a high of 5.80% for 25 year borrowing), this strategy to lock into long-term borrowing at historically low interest rates in December 2021 has proved prudent and allowed the Council to defer any new long-term borrowing during the first half of 2022/23 at higher interest rates. Debt Rescheduling Debt rescheduling opportunities in the first half of the year have been limited, reflective of the various increases in the margins added to gilt yields which have impacted PWLB new borrowing rates since October 2010. No debt rescheduling has therefore been undertaken in the first half of the financial year. Funds on Deposit The Council’s funds on deposit portfolio as at 30 September 2022 is shown in table 2 below (position at 31 March 2022 also shown for comparison):- Table 2: Council’s Funds on Deposit Portfolio at 31 March 2022 and 30 September 2022 Type 31 March 2022 30 September 2022 Principal Outstanding £000’s Weighted Average Rate Principal Outstanding £000’s Weighted Average Rate % Money Market Funds 30,323 0.52% 32,400 2.09% Bank Call Accounts 31,059 0.64% 14 1.92% Bank Notice Accounts 14,985 0.73% 14,985 0.87% Bank Fixed Term Deposits 35,000 0.41% 80,000 1.77% Bank Certificates of Deposit 0 n/a 10,000 2.85% Deposits with other Local Authorities 45,000 1.56% 30,000 1.71% Total Deposits 156,367 0.84% 167,399 1.80% £80.000 million of Bank Fixed Term Deposits and £10.000 million of Bank Certificates of Deposit were placed in May/June 2022. These deposits were placed with approved counterparties in line with the 2022- 23 Treasury Management and Annual Investment Strategy approved by Council on 15 February 2022. Of this, £65.000 million were in relation to significantly higher levels of short-term surplus cash that the Council is holding due to Government Grant and other receipts that have been paid in advance, a position that is reflected across the majority of Scottish Local Authorities. These Page 44 of 390
Page 45
5 deposits were placed with strong credit-worthy counterparties for a short term laddered duration of between 5 and 6 months. The remainder, £25.000 million, were placed for a period of 12 months, in line with the approved strategy to cash back the Council’s useable reserves. These deposits were placed with strong credit-worthy counterparties with maturity of these funds extended into the early part of the 2023/24 financial year. Page 45 of 390
Page 46
6 6 Actual/Expected Treasury Activity during second half of 2022/23 Borrowing Long term borrowing of £1.084 million will mature in the second half of 2022/23, this being £0.648 million PWLB Maturities, £0.329 million of Market Loans, £0.082 million of Salix loans and £0.025 million PWLB Annuities. Proactive Treasury Management by the Council in the last decade has placed the Council in an extremely strong refinancing position for its existing external debt portfolio, as can be noted in the table below, with only £5.414 million, or just 1.68%, of the Council’s total Loan Portfolio of £322.838 million requiring refinancing over the remainder of the current, and forthcoming four, financial years. Financial Year 2022/23 Remaining £000’s 2023/24- 2026/27 £000’s 2027/28- 2031/32 £000’s 2032/33- 2036/37 £000’s 2037/38+ £000’s Debt Maturing 1,084 4,330 33,857 29,258 274,309 % of total portfolio 0.32% 1.26% 9.88% 8.53% 80.01% This extremely low short-term exposure to refinancing risk puts the Council in a strong position to plan its borrowings in advance, take advantage of any dips in longer-term borrowing rates from PWLB and other sources, and maintain a low weighted average coupon rate on external debt. It is expected that any further long-term borrowing that is undertaken in 2022/23 to finance the current & future year capital plans will be sourced by drawing long-term PWLB loans. Consideration for any new borrowing will balance (a) de-risking the longer term borrowing requirement at historically low longer term borrowing rates; against (b) the current year and forthcoming financial year budget projections. Council officers will continue to monitor daily long-term borrowing rates in order to take advantage of any dips in the market. £- £5,000 £10,000 £15,000 £20,000 £25,000 £30,000 21/22 24/25 27/28 30/31 33/34 36/37 39/40 42/43 45/46 48/49 51/52 54/55 57/58 60/61 63/64 66/67 69/70 72/73 75/76 £000's Financial Year Loan Maturity Structure PWLB New Existing LOBO Existing Market Existing PWLB Page 46 of 390
Page 47
7 Appendix 4 provides forecasts for interest rates from the Council’s Treasury Management advisor, Link Treasury Solutions Limited. Debt Rescheduling Now that the whole of the yield curve has shifted higher there may be opportunities for debt rescheduling in the future. This would involve the Council repaying loans prematurely (both market and PWLB) whilst high discount rates on premature repayment prevail. Any debt rescheduling will be considered when the difference between the refinancing rate and the redemption rate is most advantageous and the situation will be continually monitored in order to take advantage of any perceived anomalies in the yield curve. The reasons for any rescheduling taking place would include: - the generation of cash savings at minimum risk; - to reduce the average interest rate; - to amend the maturity profile and /or the balance of volatility of the debt portfolio. Council officers will explore debt rescheduling opportunities with Link Treasury Solutions; only prudent and affordable debt rescheduling that considers both the short and medium-longer term impact will be considered. Funds on Deposit In accordance with the Prudential and Treasury Management Codes, it is the Council’s priority for funds on deposit to ensure security of capital first, then liquidity, and finally to obtain an appropriate level of return which is consistent with the Council’s risk appetite. £65.000 million of fixed term deposits held at 30 September 2022 mature in late October/November. As noted in Section 5 above, these fixed term deposits were initially placed in early 2022/23 in relation to the significantly higher levels of short-term surplus cash that the Council is holding due to Government Grant and other receipts that have been paid in advance. As such, the expected application/utilisation of these balances are now expected to be longer in duration than normal. It is expected that these maturing deposits will be refinanced with strong credit-worthy counterparties in accordance with the list of Permitted Investments as approved by Council on 15 February 2022 in the 2022-23 Treasury Management and Annual Investment Strategy, with maturity of funds laddered into late 2022/23 and early 2023/24 to ensure the Council’s cashflow Page 47 of 390
Page 48
8 requirements can be met, and earning a return commensurate with both these factors. In addition, £27.985 million of fixed term deposits held at 30 September 2022 mature in late October/early December, and £15.000 million in March 2023. These fixed term deposits were originally placed in line with the currently approved strategy to cash-back the Council’s reserves. Based on the expected future profile of the Council’s reserves, and particularly the HRA and Capital Fund balances, it is expected that these deposits will be refinanced in line with the Council’s current approved policy to cash-back reserves, with any new deposits placed with strong credit-worthy counterparties in accordance with the list of Permitted Investments parties as approved by Council on 15 February 2022 in the 2022/23 Treasury Management and Annual Investment Strategy, and with maturity of these funds extended into the latter half of the 2023/24 financial year, earning a return commensurate with the extended duration. Day to day liquidity to meet cashflow requirements is sourced from the Council’s three Money Market Funds, which all operate on an instant access basis. Interest rates receivable from these are currently between 2.83% and 3.00%, reflective of the increases to the Bank of England Base Rate throughout the 2022/23 financial year. Given the accelerating interest rate environment Council officers, in conjunction with Link Treasury Solutions Limited, will continue to review the range of all options for funds on deposit available to the Council within its stated policy in the Treasury Management & Annual Investment Strategy approved by Council on 15 February 2022 in order to select appropriate creditworthy counterparties to ensure the security of Council funds, and from that list select the range of deposit products that offer best value to the Council’s portfolio. The Acting Chief Financial Officer confirms that the approved limits within the Annual Investment Strategy were not breached during the first 6 months of 2022/23. An updated list of Countries for Deposits as at 21 November 2022 is included as Appendix 5. There are no changes from the list of Countries for Deposits as approved by Council in the 2022/23 TMSS in February 2022. Page 48 of 390
Page 49
9 Expected Loan & Fund on Deposit Portfolio at 31 March 2023 Taking all of the above into account, the expected loans and funds on deposit portfolio at 31 March 2023 is shown in Tables 3 and 4 below:- Table 3: Council’s forecast Loan Portfolio at 31 March 2023 Loan Type 31 March 2023 Principal Outstanding £000’s Weighted Average Rate PWLB Annuity 505 8.90% PWLB Maturity 304,128 2.97% LOBO 20,000 4.51% Market Loans 16,886 2.68% Temporary Market Loans 0 n/a Other Loans 235 0.00% Total Loans 341,754 3.05% Underlying Borrowing Requirement 359,008 Borrowing Requirement Financed Internally (Under Borrowed) 17,254 Table 4: Council’s forecast Funds on Deposit Portfolio at 31 March 2023 Type 31 March 2023 Principal Outstanding £000’s Weighted Average Rate Money Market Funds 19,460 3.75% Bank Call Accounts 0 n/a Bank Notice Accounts 0 n/a Bank Fixed Term Deposit Accounts 105,000 3.89% Bank Certificates of Deposit 10,000 2.85% Other Local Authority Fixed Term Deposits 2,000 1.60% Total Deposits 136,460 3.76% Page 49 of 390
Page 50
10 7 Prudential Indicators 2022/23 The following prudential indicators have been refreshed from those reported to Council on 15 February 2022 in the original Treasury Management and Annual Investment Strategy Statement 2022/23. These are technical revisions to the Prudential Indicators as a consequence of the revisions to the Council’s General Services and HRA Capital Plans and are based on the actual capital plan outturns for 2021/22, and revisions to the capital expenditure and income budgets for 2022/23. Table 5: Prudential Indicators 2022/23 – Mid Year Update Indicator 2022/23 Original Estimate £000’s 2022/23 Current Position £000’s 2022/23 Revised Estimate £000’s 2022/23 Capital Expenditure 193,134 21,010 93,433 2022/23 Required Borrowing 153,098 15,317 57,427 2022/23 Underlying Borrowing Requirement* 460,381 319,801 359,008 2022/23 Gross External Borrowing 460,381 322,838 341,754 2022/23 Over/(Under) Borrowing 0 3,037 -17,254 Operational Boundary – Borrowing 460,381 359,008 359,008 2022/23 Capital Financing Requirement** 552,814 417,135 451,441 * Excludes “On balance sheet” PPP schemes. ** Includes “On balance sheet” PPP schemes. The Capital Financing Requirement (CFR) denotes the Council’s underlying need to borrow for capital purposes. The CFR includes borrowing arising as a result of the Council’s Capital Plans, plus the long-term liability arising from the Council’s PPP and DBFM contracts. The Underlying Borrowing Requirement strips out the latter of these (long-term liability arising from the two PPP contracts) from the CFR. Page 50 of 390
Page 51
11 8 Other Treasury related issues Prudential and Treasury Management Code Revisions CIPFA, in late 2021 and early 2022, released the new editions of the Treasury Management Code and Prudential Code, along with the Treasury Management Guidance Note for Local Authorities. CIPFA expect the Codes to be fully effective from the start of the 2023/24 financial year. The main areas of the Code that have been updated are as previously noted to Council, including TMP 1 for Environmental, Social & Governance considerations, TMP 10 Knowledge and Skills schedule, and the separation of Treasury Management Investments and Non- Treasury Management Investments. The Council’s updated Treasury Management Practices, which reflects these updates to the Code, have been placed in the Member’s Library. The revised suite of Prudential & Treasury Management Indicators (including new indicators for (i) Long-Term Investments, (ii) Net Income from commercial & service investments as a Percentage of Net General Services Revenue Stream, and (iii) The Liability Benchmark), will be reported as part of the Treasury Management and Investment Strategy & Prudential Indicators 2023/24 presented to Council in February 2023, to ensure full implementation of the requirements of the Codes for the 2023/24 financial year. In addition, CIPFA have recently published a document covering Effective Scrutiny of Treasury Management, which is a self-assessment tool to support the development of effective scrutiny. This is attached as Appendix 6 to this report. There are several ways in which it can be used, as noted in the CIPFA publication, and a session will be set up to allow Audit Committee members to undertake a self-assessment using the tools within the CIPFA publication. 9 Summary Treasury Management activity during the year to 30 September 2022 has been effective within the parameters set by the strategy for the year. Any further long-term borrowing for the remainder of 2022/23 will be in line with the approved strategy, and reflective of the borrowing requirement arising from the General Services and HRA capital plans reported to Council on 15 November 2022. Officers will continue to review the opportunities available to the Council for deposit of funds as governed by the approved strategy. The Prudential Indicators have been updated to reflect current capital expenditure and income projections. Page 51 of 390
Page 52
12 10 Report Implications 10.1 Resource Revenue expenditure and variance against revenue budget as a consequence of treasury management activity is reported to Council in the regular quarterly financial reports. The quarter 2 positions for the General Fund and the Housing Revenue account were presented to Council on 15 November 2022. 10.2 Digital None. 10.3 Risk As the Council follows the requirements of the CIPFA Code of Practice for Treasury Management, and the Prudential Code, there is a reduced level of risks involved in Treasury Management activities. Those risks that do exist are further controlled through written Treasury Management Practices which define the responsibilities of all staff involved, which are updated and attached as Appendix 5 of this report, reflecting the revised Prudential and Treasury Management Codes. As part of their wider scope audit procedures for 2021/22, the Council’s external auditors carried out an interim review of the Council’s Treasury Management activity in 2021/22. This reviewed four key areas, with no material findings reported. 10.4 Ensuring Equalities There are no equalities issues arising directly from this report. 10.5 Additional Report Implications See Appendix A. Page 52 of 390
Page 53
13 Appendix A: Report Implications A.1 Key Priorities within the Single Midlothian Plan Not applicable. A.2 Key Drivers for Change A.3 Key Delivery Streams Themes addressed in this report: One Council Working with you, for you Preventative and Sustainable Efficient and Modern Innovative and Ambitious None of the above A.4 Delivering Best Value The report does not directly impact on Delivering Best Value. A.5 Involving Communities and Other Stakeholders Although no external consultation has taken place, cognisance has been taken of professional advice obtained from Link Treasury Solutions Limited, the Council’s appointed Treasury Consultants. A.6 Impact on Performance and Outcome The strategies adopted are an integral part of the corporate aim to achieve Best Value as they seek to minimise the cost of borrowing by exercising prudent debt management and investment. This in turn helps to ensure that the Council’s capital expenditure is sustainable in revenue terms. A.7 Adopting a Preventative Approach Not applicable. A.8 Supporting Sustainable Development Not applicable. Page 53 of 390
Page 54
14 Background Papers: Appendix 1: Economic Update for first part of 2022/23 financial year Appendix 2: PWLB Borrowing Rates 1 April 2022 to 30 September 2022 Appendix 3: Bank Rate and SONIA Rates 1 April 2022 to 30 September 2022 Appendix 4: Link Treasury Solutions Limited Interest Rate Forecasts Appendix 5: Approved Countries for Deposits as at 18 November 2022 Appendix 6: Effective Scrutiny of Treasury Management (CIPFA) Other Papers: Treasury Management Practices (placed in Members Library) Page 54 of 390
Page 55
15 Appendix 1: Economic Update for first part of 2022/23 financial year The second quarter of 2022/23 saw: - GDP revised upwards in Q1 2022/23 to +0.2% q/q from -0.1%, which means the UK economy has avoided recession for the time being; - Signs of economic activity losing momentum as production fell due to rising energy prices; - CPI inflation ease to 9.9% y/y in August, having been 9.0% in April, but domestic price pressures showing little sign of abating in the near-term; - The unemployment rate fall to a 48-year low of 3.6% due to a large shortfall in labour supply; - Bank Rate rise by 100bps over the quarter, taking Bank Rate to 2.25% with further rises to come; - Gilt yields surge and sterling fall following the “fiscal event” of the new Prime Minister and Chancellor on 23rd September. The UK economy grew by 0.2% q/q in Q1 2022/23, though revisions to historic data left it below pre-pandemic levels. There are signs of higher energy prices creating more persistent downward effects in economic activity. Both industrial production (-0.3% m/m) and construction output (- 0.8% m/m) fell in July 2022 for a second month in a row. Although some of this was probably due to the heat wave at the time, manufacturing output fell in some of the most energy intensive sectors (e.g., chemicals), pointing to signs of higher energy prices weighing on production. With the drag on real activity from high inflation having grown in recent months, GDP is at risk of contracting through the autumn and winter months. The fall in the composite PMI from 49.6 in August to a 20-month low preliminary reading of 48.4 in September points to a fall in GDP of around 0.2% q/q in Q3 and consumer confidence is at a record low. Retail sales volumes fell by 1.6% m/m in August, which was the ninth fall in 10 months. That left sales volumes in August just 0.5% above their pre-Covid level and 3.3% below their level at the start of the year. There are also signs that households are spending their excess savings in response to high prices. Indeed, cash in households’ bank accounts rose by £3.2bn in August, which was below the £3.9bn rise in July and much smaller than the 2019 average monthly rate of £4.6bn. The labour market remained exceptionally tight. Data for July and August provided further evidence that the weaker economy is leading to a cooling in labour demand. Labour Force Survey (LFS) employment rose by 40,000 in the three months to July (the smallest rise since February). But a renewed rise in inactivity of 154,000 over the same period meant that the unemployment rate fell from 3.8% in June to a new 48-year low of 3.6%. The single-month data showed that inactivity rose by 354,000 in July itself and there are now 904,000 more inactive people aged 16+ compared to before the pandemic in February 2020. The number of vacancies has started to level off from recent record highs but there have been few signs of a slowing in the upward momentum on wage growth. Indeed, in July, the 3my/y rate of average earnings growth rose from 5.2% in June to 5.5%. CPI inflation eased from 10.1% in July to 9.9% in August, though inflation has not peaked yet. The easing in August was mainly due to a decline in fuel prices reducing Page 55 of 390
Page 56
16 fuel inflation from 43.7% to 32.1%. And with the oil price now just below $90pb, we would expect to see fuel prices fall further in the coming months. However, utility price inflation is expected to add 0.7% to CPI inflation in October when the Ofgem unit price cap increases to, typically, £2,500 per household (prior to any benefit payments). But, as the government has frozen utility prices at that level for two years, energy price inflation will fall sharply after October and have a big downward influence on CPI inflation. Nonetheless, the rise in services CPI inflation from 5.7% y/y in July to a 30-year high of 5.9% y/y in August suggests that domestic price pressures are showing little sign of abating. A lot of that is being driven by the tight labour market and strong wage growth. CPI inflation is expected to peak close to 10.4% in November and, with the supply of workers set to remain unusually low, the tight labour market will keep underlying inflationary pressures strong until early next year. During H1 2022, there has been a change of both Prime Minister and Chancellor. The new team (Liz Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng) have made a step change in government policy. The government’s huge fiscal loosening from its proposed significant tax cuts will add to existing domestic inflationary pressures and will potentially leave a legacy of higher interest rates and public debt. Whilst the government’s utility price freeze, which could cost up to £150bn (5.7% of GDP) over 2 years, will reduce peak inflation from 14.5% in January next year to 10.4% in November this year, the long list of tax measures announced at the “fiscal event” adds up to a loosening in fiscal policy relative to the previous government’s plans of £44.8bn (1.8% of GDP) by 2026/27. These included the reversal of April’s national insurance tax on 6th November, the cut in the basic rate of income tax from 20p to 19p in April 2023, the cancellation of next April’s corporation tax rise, the cut to stamp duty and the removal of the 45p tax rate, although the 45p tax rate cut announcement has already been reversed. Fears that the government has no fiscal anchor on the back of these announcements has meant that the pound has weakened again, adding further upward pressure to interest rates. Whilst the pound fell to a record low of $1.035 on the Monday following the government’s “fiscal event”, it has since recovered to around $1.12. That is due to hopes that the Bank of England will deliver a very big rise in interest rates at the policy meeting on 3rd November and the government will lay out a credible medium-term plan in the near term. This was originally expected as part of the fiscal statement on 23rd November but has subsequently been moved forward to an expected release date in October. Nevertheless, with concerns over a global recession growing, there are downside risks to the pound. The MPC has now increased interest rates seven times in as many meetings in 2022 and has raised rates to their highest level since the Global Financial Crisis. Even so, coming after the Fed and ECB raised rates by 75 basis points (bps) in their most recent meetings, the Bank of England’s latest 50 basis points hike looks relatively dovish. However, the UK’s status as a large importer of commodities, which have jumped in price, means that households in the UK are now facing a much larger squeeze on their real incomes. Since the fiscal event on 23rd September, we now expect the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) to increase interest rates further and faster, from 2.25% currently to a peak of 5.00% in February 2023. The combination of the government’s fiscal loosening, the tight labour market and sticky inflation expectations means we expect Page 56 of 390
Page 57
17 the MPC to raise interest rates by 100bps at the policy meetings in November (to 3.25%) and 75 basis points in December (to 4%) followed by further 50 basis point hikes in February and March (to 5.00%). Market expectations for what the MPC will do are volatile. If Bank Rate climbs to these levels the housing market looks very vulnerable, which is one reason why the peak in our forecast is lower than the peak of 5.50% - 5.75% priced into the financial markets at present. Throughout 2022/23, gilt yields have been on an upward trend. They were initially caught up in the global surge in bond yields triggered by the surprisingly strong rise in CPI inflation in the US in May. The rises in two-year gilt yields (to a peak of 2.37% on 21st June) and 10-year yields (to a peak of 2.62%) took them to their highest level since 2008 and 2014 respectively. However, the upward trend was exceptionally sharply at the end of September as investors demanded a higher risk premium and expected faster and higher interest rate rises to offset the government’s extraordinary fiscal stimulus plans. The 30-year gilt yield rose from 3.60% to 5.10% following the “fiscal event”, which threatened financial stability by forcing pension funds to sell assets into a falling market to meet cash collateral requirements. In response, the Bank did two things. First, it postponed its plans to start selling some of its quantitative easing (QE) gilt holdings until 31st October. Second, it committed to buy up to £65bn of long-term gilts to “restore orderly market conditions” until 14th October. In other words, the Bank is restarting QE, although for financial stability reasons rather than monetary policy reasons. Since the Bank’s announcement on 28th September, the 30-year gilt yield has fallen back from 5.10% to 3.83%. The 2-year gilt yield dropped from 4.70% to 4.30% and the 10-year yield fell back from 4.55% to 4.09%. There is a possibility that the Bank continues with QE at the long-end beyond 14th October or it decides to delay quantitative tightening beyond 31st October, even as it raises interest rates. So far at least, investors seem to have taken the Bank at its word that this is not a change in the direction of monetary policy nor a step towards monetary financing of the government’s deficit. But instead, that it is a temporary intervention with financial stability in mind. After a shaky start to the year, the S&P 500 and FTSE 100 climbed in the first half of Q2 2022/23 before falling to their lowest levels since November 2020 and July 2021 respectively. The S&P 500 is 7.2% below its level at the start of the quarter, whilst the FTSE 100 is 5.2% below it as the fall in the pound has boosted the value of overseas earnings in the index. The decline has, in part, been driven by the rise in global real yields and the resulting downward pressure on equity valuations as well as concerns over economic growth leading to a deterioration in investor risk appetite. Page 57 of 390
Page 58
18 Appendix 2: PWLB Borrowing Rates 1 April 2022 to 30 September 2022 The graphs and table below show the movement in PWLB certainty rates for the first six months of the year to date: PWLB certainty rates 1 April 2022 to 30th September 2022 1 Year 5 Year 10 Year 25 Year 50 Year Low 1.95% 2.18% 2.36% 2.52% 2.25% Date 01/04/2022 13/05/2022 04/04/2022 04/04/2022 04/04/2022 High 5.11% 5.44% 5.35% 5.80% 5.51% Date 28/09/2022 28/09/2022 28/09/2022 28/09/2022 28/09/2022 Average 2.81% 2.92% 3.13% 3.44% 3.17% Spread 3.16% 3.26% 2.99% 3.28% 3.26% Page 58 of 390
Page 59
19 Gilt yields and PWLB rates were on a rising trend between 1st April and 30th September. The 50-year PWLB target certainty rate for new long-term borrowing started 2022/23 at 2.20% before increasing to 4.80% in September. Page 59 of 390
Page 60
20 Appendix 3: Bank Rate and SONIA Rates 1 April 2022 to 30 September 2022 The graphs and table below show the movement in Bank and SONIA rates for the first six months of the year to date: 0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00 5.00 6.00 Bank Rate vs term SONIA rates % 1.4.22 - 30.9.22 Bank Rate SONIA 1 mth 3 mth 6 mth 12 mth QUARTER ENDED 30/9/2022 Bank Rate SONIA 1 mth 3 mth 6 mth 12 mth High 2.25 2.19 2.86 3.67 4.49 5.41 High Date 22/09/2022 30/09/2022 26/09/2022 26/09/2022 29/09/2022 29/09/2022 Low 0.75 0.69 0.69 0.92 1.20 1.62 Low Date 01/04/2022 28/04/2022 01/04/2022 01/04/2022 07/04/2022 04/04/2022 Average 1.28 1.22 1.39 1.70 2.12 2.62 Spread 1.50 1.50 2.17 2.75 3.29 3.79 Page 60 of 390
Page 61
21 Appendix 4: Link Treasury Solutions Limited Interest Rate Forecasts The Council has appointed Link Group as its treasury advisors and part of their service is to assist the Council to formulate a view on interest rates. The PWLB rate forecasts below are based on the Certainty Rate (the standard rate minus 20 bps) which has been accessible to most authorities since 1st November 2012. The increase in PWLB rates reflects a broad sell-off in sovereign bonds internationally but more so the disaffection investors have with the position of the UK public finances after September’s “fiscal event”. To that end, the MPC has tightened short-term interest rates with a view to trying to slow the economy sufficiently to keep the secondary effects of inflation – as measured by wage rises – under control, but its job is that much harder now. On 2 November 2022, the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) increased Bank Rate to 3.00% from 2.25%. The increase reflected a split vote – seven members voting for a 75 basis points increase, one for 50 basis points and one for 25 basis points. The MPC continues to grapple with getting inflation back on track over a three-year horizon. Moreover, the UK has a new Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, a new Chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, and new fiscal policies that seek to ensure that the public finances are kept on a sound footing and that any projected gaps are fully funded from services efficiencies and/or net tax increases. In the interim period, since the end of September, the Government scrapped the reduction in the basic rate of income tax by 1p in the £; maintained the higher band 45p in the £ income tax rate; did not reduce Corporation Tax to 19% from 25%; only put in place support for businesses and households for 6 months (October to March) regarding caps on the unit costs of gas and electricity. In addition, the Bank of England has had to intervene in the longer part of the gilt market to ensure that pension funds did not have to undertake a “fire sale” of assets to raise cash to pay for margin calls, arising from the sell-off of long-dated gilts (yields rising) in the wake of the former Chancellor’s policy to seek to boost growth with unfunded tax cuts. Since then, calm has returned to the markets, the £ has risen from a historic low of $1.03 to $1.19, and the cumulative movement in gilt yields since the turn of the year is now broadly in line with that seen in the US and Euro-zone bond markets. Turning back to the MPC meeting on 2 November 2022, the Bank’s Quarterly Monetary Policy Report detailed that the UK economy is headed for eight quarters of negative growth based on the market’s expectation for Bank Rate to increase to 5.25%. Since then, market expectations have been recalibrated, and now view a Page 61 of 390
Page 62
22 peak in Bank Rate of between 4.5% and 4.75%. These views are similar to those held by Link Group’s Interest Rate Strategy Group (IRSG). IRSG has reduced its view on the peak of Bank Rate from 5% to 4.5%. However, although Link’s IRSG see rates peaking in May of 2023, they now also believe there are several challenges to the Bank that could see them leave rates at this level until early 2024. The first of those challenges is the tight labour market (unemployment is at a 48 year low 3.5%), which shows no signs of dissipating, and that could mean wage increases continue to be north of 5% well into 2023 (the Bank would broadly want wages to be in the range of 3% - 3.5%). There is also the prospect that unless the workforce participation rate increases and/or immigration policies are relaxed, there is no clear route that would give rise to sustainable increases in economic growth. And, of course, inflation could be somewhat “sticky” if the Russian invasion of Ukraine remains unresolved and puts continued pressure on global energy prices and staple foods (e.g., wheat), among the many areas negatively impacted. Against this backdrop, the Link IRSG believe the MPC will have to tread carefully. It will need to evidence to the markets that it sees the reduction in inflation as a primary objective, but also that it remains alert to the fact that it does not want any recession to be deeper and more prolonged than it needs to be. On that basis the Link IRSG forecast sees Bank Rate increasing 50 basis points in both December and February before the MPC scales down the rate of increase to just 25 basis points in both March and May 2023. Regarding the forecast for PWLB rates, as already stated, the impact of the Truss/Kwarteng fiscal experiment has faded in the past month but Link’s IRSG think investors will still remain a little nervous over the UK’s future fiscal policy and therefore have reduced the forecast for near-term PWLB rates across the curve, compared to September’s forecast, but have left the longer end of the curve slightly higher to reflect the potential demand by foreign investors for a “confidence premium” in the light of recent market volatility. As for the housing market, the most recent survey by Nationwide Building Society showed house prices starting to fall and the MPC will be very cognisant that affordability could be stretched now that fixed rate mortgages are somewhat higher than they were a few weeks ago. Historically, the MPC has appeared reluctant to tighten monetary policy in a falling housing market, but it may be willing to leave rates less high than the market had been pricing in prior to the 3rd of November Quarterly Monetary Policy Report but keep them there for longer as a compromise of sorts. Of course, what happens outside of the UK is also critical to movement in gilt yields. The US FOMC has led with increases of 375 basis points in the year to date and is expected to increase rates further before the end of the year, and possibly into 2023. Similarly, the ECB has also started to tighten monetary policy, albeit from an ultra- low starting point, as have all the major central banks apart from Japan. Arguably, though, it is US monetary policies that will have the greatest impact on global bond markets. Geo-political events continue to lead to frequent whipsawing in equity, bond, commodity and currency markets. And the weather will also play a large part in how high energy prices stay and for how long. Not forgetting developments in Iran, North Korea, Taiwan and China. Page 62 of 390
Page 63
23 The balance of risks to the UK economy: - - The overall balance of risks to economic growth in the UK is to the downside. Downside risks to current forecasts for UK gilt yields and PWLB rates include: - Labour and supply shortages prove more enduring and disruptive and depress economic activity (accepting that in the near-term this is also an upside risk to inflation and, thus, rising gilt yields). - The Bank of England acts too quickly, or too far, over the next two years to raise Bank Rate and causes UK economic growth, and increases in inflation, to be weaker than we currently anticipate. - UK / EU trade arrangements – if there was a major impact on trade flows and financial services due to complications or lack of co-operation in sorting out significant remaining issues. - Geopolitical risks, for example in Ukraine/Russia, China/Taiwan/US, Iran, North Korea and Middle Eastern countries, which could lead to increasing safe-haven flows. Upside risks to current forecasts for UK gilt yields and PWLB rates: - - The Bank of England is too slow in its pace and strength of increases in Bank Rate and, therefore, allows inflationary pressures to build up too strongly and for a longer period within the UK economy, which then necessitates an even more rapid series of increases in Bank Rate faster than we currently expect. - The Government acts too quickly to cut taxes and/or increases expenditure in the light of the cost-of-living squeeze. - The pound weakens because of a lack of confidence in the UK Government’s fiscal policies, resulting in investors pricing in a risk premium for holding UK sovereign debt. - Longer term US treasury yields continue to rise strongly and pull gilt yields up even higher than currently forecast. Gilt yields and PWLB rates The general situation is for volatility in bond yields to endure as investor fears for inflation and/or recession ebb and flow. The overall longer-run trend is for gilt yields and PWLB rates to remain high in the near-term, given the extent to which market expectations are already priced in and then to fall back once inflation starts to fall through 2023. Bank Rate Page 63 of 390
Page 64
24 The Link IRSG now expect the MPC to swiftly increase Bank Rate during the remainder of 2022 and into Q2 2023 to combat the sharp increase in inflationary pressures. The new Government’s policy of emphasising fiscal rectitude will however likely mean Bank Rate does not now need to increase to further than 4.5%. Further down the road, the Link IRSG anticipate the Bank of England will be keen to loosen monetary policy when the worst of the inflationary pressures are behind the UK – but that timing will be one of fine judgment: cut too soon, and inflationary pressures may well build up further; cut too late and any downturn or recession may be prolonged. The CPI measure of inflation will peak at close to 11% in Q4 2022. Despite the cost- of-living squeeze that is still taking shape, the Bank will want to see evidence that wages are not spiralling upwards in what is evidently a very tight labour market. Regarding the plan to sell £10bn of gilts back into the market each quarter (Quantitative Tightening), this has started but will focus on the short to medium end of the curve for the present so as to prevent any further disruption to the longer end of the curve following on from the short-lived effects of the Truss/Kwarteng unfunded dash for growth policy. In the upcoming months, the Link IRSG forecasts will be guided not only by economic data releases and clarifications from the MPC over its monetary policies and the Government over its fiscal policies, but the on-going conflict between Russia and Ukraine. (More recently, the heightened tensions between China/Taiwan/US also have the potential to have a wider and negative economic impact.) On the positive side, consumers are still estimated to be sitting on over £160bn of excess savings left over from the pandemic so that will cushion some of the impact of the above challenges. However, most of those are held by more affluent people whereas lower income families already spend nearly all their income on essentials such as food, energy and rent/mortgage payments. Creditworthiness Following the Government’s fiscal event on 23rd September, Fitch, Moody’s and S&P all placed the UK sovereign debt rating on Negative Outlook, reflecting a downside bias to the current ratings in light of expectations of weaker finances and the economic outlook. CDS prices It is noted that sentiment in the current economic climate can easily shift, so it remains important to undertake continual monitoring of all aspects of risk and return in the current circumstances. Page 64 of 390
Page 65
25 Appendix 5: Approved Countries for Deposit as at 18 November 2022 AAA • Australia • Denmark • Germany • Luxembourg • Netherlands • Norway • Singapore • Sweden • Switzerland AA+ • Canada • Finland • U.S.A. AA • Abu Dhabi (UAE) • France AA- • Belgium • Hong Kong • Qatar • U.K. Page 65 of 390
Page 66
Page 66 of 390
Page 67
cipfa.org CIPFA, registered with the Charity Commissioners of England and Wales No. 231060 and the Office of the Scottish Charity Regulator No.SC037963. CIPFA Business Limited, the trading arm of CIPFA, registered in England and Wales no.2376684. Registered Office 77 Mansell Street, London E1 8AN. Effective Scrutiny of Treasury Management Self-assessment by members responsible for the scrutiny of treasury management CIPFA’s Treasury Management In The Public Services: Code of Practice and Cross-sectoral Guidance Notes (2021 edition) requires public service organisations to nominate a responsible body for the scrutiny of treasury management strategy and policies. To undertake this role effectively, the nominated committee will require support, training and guidance. CIPFA’s publication Audit Committees: Practical Guidance for Local Authorities and Police (2022 edition) provides guidance for the audit committee if it is nominated to take on the scrutiny role. It also identifies core areas of knowledge committee members would need to undertake this role effectively. Effective scrutiny is important. As well as demonstrating compliance with the Treasury Management Code, scrutiny is an important part of ensuring effective governance of treasury management. • It helps develop a better understanding of the treasury risks faced by the organisation. • It helps ensure better decision making on strategy and policy matters. • It improves accountability and transparency. • It improves knowledge and understanding of treasury matters among the members of the governing body. This self-assessment tool has been designed to support the development of effective scrutiny. There are several ways it can be used, including the following. • For self-assessment by the committee responsible for undertaking the scrutiny. • For self-assessment by the responsible committee with additional input from the audit committee (where the audit committee doesn’t undertake this function directly). • For review as part of an internal audit of treasury management. • For review by the treasury officers/finance team responsible for reporting to the committee. Page 67 of 390
Page 68
The most important thing is that the review is used to identify any areas where support or training is needed to ensure the development of effective scrutiny. This assessment tool replaces the 2014 edition. CIPFA Better Governance Forum and Treasury Management Network 2022 Page 68 of 390
Page 69
Aspects of delivering effective scrutiny Yes No Partly Comments/examples Action plan for improvement or development Clearly defined responsibility Has the organisation nominated a responsible committee for scrutiny in compliance with the CIPFA Treasury Management Code of Practice? Does the committee responsible for scrutiny have appropriate and up-to-date terms of reference outlining its role in relation to treasury management? Knowledge and training Do those responsible for scrutiny have an appropriate level of knowledge in the following areas: • Regulatory requirements? • Treasury risks? • The organisation’s treasury management strategy? Page 69 of 390
Page 70
Aspects of delivering effective scrutiny Yes No Partly Comments/examples Action plan for improvement or development • The organisation’s policies and procedures in relation to treasury management? Have committee members been provided with training for their role? Support for effective scrutiny Has adequate time been made on the committee agenda to allow for sufficient scrutiny to take place? Have reports and briefings been provided in good time to committee members? Have reports and briefings been presented to the committee with adequate explanations and minimal jargon? Page 70 of 390
Page 71
Aspects of delivering effective scrutiny Yes No Partly Comments/examples Action plan for improvement or development Coverage of the required areas During the past year, has the committee undertaken scrutiny as follows: • Reviewed whether appropriate policy and procedures have been adopted? • Reviewed the robustness of the process for strategy development – for example, whether option appraisals and opportunity costing have been used? • Received regular briefings on performance, issues and trends affecting treasury management? • Reviewed the organisation’s risk profile and treasury risks and how these are managed? Page 71 of 390
Page 72
Aspects of delivering effective scrutiny Yes No Partly Comments/examples Action plan for improvement or development • Reviewed the role of external advisors and the adequacy of other sources of financial information? • Reviewed assurances on treasury management, including internal audit reports and management reports? During the past year, has the committee scrutinised how effectively decision- making bodies are performing their roles as defined by clauses 2 and 3 in the Treasury Management Code of Practice? For instance, does the committee know whether the nominated body responsible for implementation and monitoring (clause 3) has carried out this role satisfactorily? Quality of scrutiny Is the committee able to demonstrate its effectiveness in providing scrutiny in any of the following ways: Page 72 of 390
Page 73
• Questioning and constructive challenge? • Recommendations for additional actions? • Ensuring that adequate plans are in place to provide assurance? • Following up any recommendations or action plans? • Providing a report to full council on the scrutiny undertaken? • Other examples? Impact of scrutiny Is the committee able to demonstrate the impact of undertaking scrutiny? Page 73 of 390
Page 74
Examples might include the following: • Improvements in internal controls as a result of scrutiny of policies and procedures. • Improvements made to reports to make them more understandable. • Members of full council can better understand the risks shaping the organisation’s treasury strategy. Completion date of assessment: Completed by: Page 74 of 390
Page 75
Midlothian Council Tuesday 13 December 2022 Annual Procurement Report 2021/22 Report by Kevin Anderson, Executive Director, Place Report for Information 1 Recommendations The Council is asked to note the Annual Procurement Report on regulated procurements during 2021/22. 2 Purpose of Report/Executive Summary The Annual Procurement Report on regulated procurements during 2021/22 has been prepared and is being presented to Council for noting prior to being published on the Council’s website. Date 02 December 2022 Report Contact: Alan Turpie, Legal and Governance Manager. alan.turpie@midlothian.gov.uk Page 75 of 390
Page 76
2 3 Background/Main Body of Report 3.1 Where a public organisation is required to prepare a procurement strategy or review an existing one, for example, and if it has an estimated value of regulated procurement spend of £5 million or more (excluding VAT) in a financial year, it must also publish an annual procurement report. The Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 sets out what, as a minimum, each annual procurement report must contain. The annual procurement report should be relevant and proportionate, providing transparency of its purchasing activities. The annual report monitors the authority’s regulated procurement activities against delivery of its procurement strategy. This Annual Procurement Report for the 2021-2022 financial year is attached as an Appendix to this report. 3.2 The Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 lists the minimum requirements that the Annual Procurement Report must contain which are as follows: a) a summary of the regulated procurements that have been completed during the period of the report; b) a review of whether those procurements complied with the Council’s procurement strategy; c) to the extent that any regulated procurements did not comply, a statement of how the authority intends to ensure that future procurements do comply; d) a summary of any community benefits requirements imposed as part of a regulated procurement that were fulfilled during the year covered by the report; e) a summary of any steps taken to facilitate the involvement of supported businesses during the year covered by the report; f) a summary of regulated procurements the authority expects to award in the next two financial years; g) such other information as the Scottish Ministers may specify. The attached Midlothian Council Annual Procurement Report 2021/22 complies with the above statutory requirements. 4 Report Implications (Resource, Digital and Risk) 4.1 Resource There are no resource implications arising from this report. 4.2 Digital There are no digital implications arising from this report. 4.3 Risk There are no risk implications arising from this report. Page 76 of 390
Page 77
3 4.4 Ensuring Equalities (if required a separate IIA must be completed) This report does not recommend any change to policy or practice and therefore does not require an Equalities Impact Assessment. 4.5 Additional Report Implications See Appendix A Appendices Appendix A – Additional Report Implications Appendix B – Annual Procurement Report Page 77 of 390
Page 78
4 APPENDIX A – Report Implications A.1 Key Priorities within the Single Midlothian Plan Not applicable A.2 Key Drivers for Change Key drivers addressed in this report: Holistic Working Hub and Spoke Modern Sustainable Transformational Preventative Asset-based Continuous Improvement One size fits one None of the above A.3 Key Delivery Streams Key delivery streams addressed in this report: One Council Working with you, for you Preventative and Sustainable Efficient and Modern Innovative and Ambitious None of the above A.4 Delivering Best Value The report does not directly impact on Delivering Best Value A.5 Involving Communities and Other Stakeholders Relevant colleagues and stakeholders have been consulted in the development of the Annual Procurement Report A.6 Impact on Performance and Outcomes The report does not directly impact on Midlothian Council’s performance and outcomes A.7 Adopting a Preventative Approach Not applicable A.8 Supporting Sustainable Development Not applicable APPENDIX B Annual Procurement Report Page 78 of 390
Page 79
5 Page 79 of 390
Page 80
Page 80 of 390
Page 81
Midlothian Council Annual Procurement Report (1st April 2021 – 31st March 2022) Page 81 of 390
Page 82
Contents • Introduction • Summary of Regulated Procurement • Review of Regulated Procurement Compliance • Community Benefit Summary • Supported Business Summary • Future Regulated Procurements Summary • Review of Midlothian’s Procurement Strategy 2018 – 2023 • Appendix 1: Regulated Procurements Completed (1st April 2021 – 31st March 2022) • Appendix 2: Regulated Procurement Forward Plan (1st April 2022 – 31st March 2024) Page 82 of 390
Page 83
Introduction The Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 requires any public contracting authority such as Midlothian Council that is required to publish a procurement strategy also to prepare and publish an annual procurement report on all regulated procurement activities. The annual procurement report is intended to: 1. Aid visibility of procurement activities 2. Be a mechanism for conveying how the Council is meeting legislative requirements; and 3. Outline how the Council’s procurement activity is contributing to the delivery of its broader aims and objectives. Section 18(2) of the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 details the minimum content of the annual procurement report: • A summary of regulated procurements completed during the year • A review of whether those procurements complied with the authority’s procurement strategy • Where any procurements did not comply, a statement of how the authority intends to ensure future regulated procurements do comply • A summary of community benefit requirements imposed as part of the regulated procurement that were fulfilled during the year • A summary of any steps taken to facilitate involvement of supported businesses • A summary of regulated procurements the authority expects to commence in the next 2 financial years This procurement report will review Midlothian’s Procurement Strategy 2018-2023 and evaluate the organisations procurement activity and further supports Midlothian Council’s commitment to transparency within it procurement activity. Page 83 of 390
Page 84
Summary of Regulated Procurements Section 18(2) of the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 requires organisations to include “a summary of the regulated procurements that have been completed during the year covered by the report”. Regulated procurement refers to any procurement above £50,000 for goods and services or £2,000,000 for works. A regulated procurement is completed when the award notice is published or where the procurement process otherwise comes to an end. Regulated procurements can refer to new contracts and framework agreements but also to mini- competitions and call-offs from existing framework agreements. The principle of transparency requires an organisation to approach its public procurements in an open and inclusive manner. During the period of this annual procurement report (1st April 2021 – 31st March 2022) Midlothian Council carried out the regulated Procurements found in Appendix 1 and provides a high level summary which includes: 1. The date of award 2. The name of the supplier(s) 3. Title of contract 4. Estimated value of contract/framework 5. Contract start date 6. Contract end date Page 84 of 390
Page 85
Review of Regulated Procurement Compliance Section 17 of the Act requires all regulated procurements to be carried out in line with the organisations procurement strategy. Section 18(2) states that an annual procurement report must include a “a review of whether those procurements complied with the authority’s procurement strategy” and “the extent to which any regulated procurements did not comply, and a statement detailing how the organisation will ensure that future regulated procurements do comply”. Prior to the commencement of any regulated procurement exercise a commodity strategy is developed. Commodity strategies are reviewed as part of the governance procedures. This involves a review by the project team and various members of management to ensure commodity strategies reflect and adhere to the values and principles set out in the overall procurement strategy. Commodity strategies reflect Midlothian Council’s procurement strategy and ensure that the procurement exercise follow a journey that embeds our organisations principles, values and objectives. This methodology aims to ensure that all regulated procurements align with the Procurement Strategy. Furthermore, our approach to strategic procurement in this way maximises the added value potential in each and every procurement exercise. Following the appointment of a new team lead earlier in the year, a review into the templates used for pre-procurement strategies and post-procurement recommendation reports will be undertaken. We continually strive to strengthen and develop our internal governance and recognise that strategy development is crucial in the creation of our contracts and frameworks. To ensure suppliers (locally and nationally) are paid timeously the Council is committed to paying all suppliers within 30 days. Prompt payment clauses requiring a 30 day payment term are embedded within our contractual terms and conditions. Suppliers are required to apply the same terms and conditions with their subcontractors who are supporting and delivering the council contract. During the reporting period 2021/22 the Council paid 93.1% of invoices within agreed timescales. The combined strategy development and procurement processes in place ensured that all regulated procurements were undertaken in compliance with the legal and procedural framework, and as a result in compliance with our overarching Procurement Strategy. Page 85 of 390
Page 86
Community Benefit Summary Section 18(2) of the Procurement Reform (Scotland) act states that it is mandatory for the annual procurement report to include a summary of any community benefit requirements imposed as part of a regulated procurement that were fulfilled during the year covered by the report. Section 25 of the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 mandates that all contracting authorities must consider whether to impose community benefit requirements as part of the procurement when the estimated contract value is greater than or equal to £4,000,000. However, community benefits are a key objective of the Council’s Procurement Strategy 2018-2023 meaning all appropriate procurements must consider community benefits during the commodity strategy stage. Incorporating community benefits into our procurement activity recognises that we contribute to the delivery of social and environmental benefits. Suppliers are required to make a community benefits submission as part of their overall tender submission. Community benefits secured through the procurement process are recorded and monitored over the lifetime of the contract. This is currently recorded on the Cenefits software system but work is ongoing to explore alternative solutions. Key community benefit outcomes secured during the reporting period include: • Targeted recruitment and training e.g jobs, training, work experience, job shadowing opportunities, apprenticeships for young persons and unemployed individuals • Community Consultation, engagement and strengthening community relations • Sponsorship of local organisations Page 86 of 390
Page 87
Supported Businesses Summary Section 18(2) of the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 requires organisations to include a summary of any steps taken to facilitate the involvement of supported businesses in regulated procurements during the year covered by the report. Supported Businesses make an important contribution to the Scottish economy, through the goods and services they deliver, but also by providing meaningful employment, training and social support for those who otherwise may be excluded from the workplace. The council’s procurement manual instructs that consideration be given to inclusion of supported businesses in all regulated procurements. In addition, the procurement page on the Council’s intranet site includes details of supported businesses who currently have contracts with Scottish Government and Scotland Excel. During the reporting period 2021/22 there were no regulated Midlothian procurements awarded to supported business. The reason for this is that the goods, services or works associated with the awarded contracts over the reporting period are not currently provided by existing supported businesses. Page 87 of 390
Page 88
Future Regulated Procurements Summary Section 18(2) of the Procurement Reform (Scotland) Act 2014 states that is mandatory that the annual procurement report must include a summary of the regulated procurements the authority expects to commence in the two financial years following the end of the reporting period.. Acting in a transparent and proportionate manner is an effective way by which an organisation can encourage competition and achieve better value for money in its procurements. It promotes wider participation in the public procurement process and this information will give notice to suppliers of future opportunities. Future regulated procurements have been identified via the following means: 1. Current contracts on the council’s contract register that will expire and need to be extended or re-let over the next two years. 2. New procurements identified via future work plans provided by Council service teams. A full list of anticipated procurements in the next two years can be seen in Appendix 2. Page 88 of 390
Page 89
Review of Midlothian’s Procurement Strategy 2018 – 2023 Midlothian’s 2018-2023 strategy consisted of 3 main themes; 1. Economic – Supporting the local economy 2. Social - Deliver safe, quality and innovative services that meet citizens’ needs 3. Commercial Efficiency and Contract & Supplier Management – Securing best value for money Economic The Procurement Team has published a Local/SME Procurement Strategy in conjunction with Economic Development colleagues. The two teams continue to work in partnership to limit any barriers or obstacles which would have been preventing local businesses from participating in Council contracts. Without question, this area can be developed considerably but in the last 2 years, limited resource within the Procurement team has prevented progress and stunted opportunity for growth. Social The Cenefits system was implemented as a means of recording Community Benefits (CBs). This was a partial success in that the system offers a clean way of recording/tracking CBs. However, resource remains a challenge from both Council and Supplier side in relation to the execution of the CB. Midlothian are actively exploring alternative solutions. Community Benefits are included in every competitive procurement as standard. As are Key Performance Indicators and Service Level Agreements where appropriate and proportionate. Commercial Efficiency and Contract & Supplier Management The Procurement Team continue to work closely with Scotland Excel, Scottish Procurement (Scottish Government) and Crown Commercial Services to establish best value for money solutions. In addition, cross Council collaborations remain in place for certain contracts. The team is currently split into 3 Categories; 1. People and Partnerships 2. Construction & Commercial Operations 3. Corporate It is unlikely however that a full Category Management approach to these areas can be credibly claimed. The nature of the work has resulted in reactive methodologies as oppose to the proactive approach Category Management requires. There is an ongoing proposal to recruit additional procurement officers and to change the structure from 3 to 4 Categories which should be more manageable. Page 89 of 390
Page 90
Page 90 of 390
Page 91
Appendix 1 Table of Compliant Regulated Procurements (between 01 April 2021 and 31 March 2022) To be inserted Page 91 of 390
Page 92
Appendix 2 Compliant Regulated Procurements Pipeline (between 01 April 2022 and 31 March 2024 To be inserted Page 92 of 390
Page 93
MID-21-04 School Counselling Service School Counselling Service for children and young people aged 10 – 18 years New 1,531,460.00 29/03/2021 05/10/2021 01/09/2021 MID/xx/xx M&E Term Contract Mechanical and Electrical Maintenance Term Contract Re-let 4,600,000.00 01/05/2022 15/09/2022 01/10/2022 MID/xx/xx Highway maintenance Highway maintenance contract New 4,000,000.00 01/07/2022 01/07/2022 01/07/2022 MID/xx/xx Housing Newbattle New housing at Newbattle High School Site New 23,000,000.00 01/11/2021 01/03/2022 01/07/2022 MID/XX/XX Gas Audit Services Provision of gas audit services in domestic and commercial properties Re-let 160,000.00 15/01/2022 15/05/2022 01/06/2022 MID/XX/XX Easthouses Primary School Primary school at Easthouses in Midlothian New 15,000,000.00 01/10/2022 01/03/2023 01/04/2023 MID/XX/XX Intermediate Care, day Care and Extra Care Facilities Polton Street Care facilities at Polton Street Bonnyrigg New 10,000,000.00 23/09/2021 01/04/2022 01/05/2022 MID/XX/XX Windows and Doors Supply of windows and doors for domestic properties in Midlothian Re-let 2,000,000.00 01/12/2021 25/11/2021 01/12/2021 MID/21/53 Supply of 3 RCVs Supply of 3 RCVs New 150,000.00 03/11/2021 03/11/2021 03/11/2021 MID/XX/XX Woiodburn Primary School Extension of existing Primary School New 11,400,000.00 15/01/2022 01/06/2022 01/07/2022 MID/XX/XX Mayfield St Lukes Replacement school campus at Mayfield New 15,000,000.00 01/11/2022 01/03/2023 01/04/2023 MID/XX/XX Beeslack High School Replacement school campus in Penicuik New 50,000,000.00 01/04/2022 01/09/2022 01/10/2022 MID/XX/XX Housing Newton Church Road Danderhall Provision of 24 units at Newton Church Road Danderhall New TBC - High Value / Complex 01/04/2022 01/09/2022 01/04/2023 MID/XX/XX Housing Bonnyrigg High Street Provision of 20 units at High Street Bonnyrigg New 4,900,000.00 01/02/2022 01/06/2022 01/07/2022 MID/XX/XX Housing Stobhill Road Gorebridge Provision of 25 units at Stobhill Road Gorebridge New 5,900,000.00 01/06/2022 30/09/2022 01/11/2022 MID/XX/XX A701 Link Road A701 relief Road, A702 Spur Road, A701 active travel corridor and Straiton Junction signalisation New 30,000,000.00 01/06/2022 01/11/2022 01/12/2022 MID/XX/XX Gulley machine Provision of a Gulley machine New 150,000.00 01/12/2021 01/12/2021 01/12/2021 MID/XX/XX Hilled Main Building Main building at Hillend Ski Centre New 11,000,000.00 01/12/2022 01/05/2023 01/06/2023 MID/XX/XX Hillend Glamping Units Glamping units at Hillend Ski Centre New 1,000,000.00 01/03/2023 01/04/2023 01/06/2023 MID/XX/XX Planer/Cold Milling Machine Provision of a Planer/Cold Milling machine New 300,000.00 TBC TBC TBC MID/21/43 Hillend Civils Utilities and Minor Works Civils contractor for the provision of upgrade and alteration works to A702 junction New 5,000,000.00 06/09/2021 01/03/2022 31/03/2022 MID/XX/XX Primrose Lodge - 4 Units and 2 Respite Units Services for people with Profound and Multiple Learning Disablities New 3,200,000.00 01/07/2022 01/09/2022 01/12/2022 MID/XX/XX Early Learning and Childcare Early Learning and Childcare Provision New 7,000,000.00 01/02/2022 01/05/2022 01/08/2022 MID/XX/XX Day Services - Learning Disabilities Day Services - Learning Disabilities New TBC - High Value / Complex 01/03/2022 01/06/2023 01/09/2023 MID/XX/XX Befriending Service & Therapeutic Family WorkBefriending Service & Therapeutic Family Work Re-let 597,934.00 10/01/2022 01/03/2022 01/06/2022 MID/XX/XX Lasswade Primary School Lasswade Primary School New TBC - High Value / Complex 01/04/2023 01/09/2023 01/10/2023 MID/XX/XX Kings Park Primary School Extension and Refurbishment Kings Park Primary School Extension and Refurbishment New TBC - High Value / Complex 01/04/2023 01/09/2023 01/10/2023 Page 93 of 390
Page 94
Page 94 of 390
Page 95
Document ID OCID Published Date Notice type 684421 ocds-r6ebe6-0000653272 23/02/2022 10:59 OJEU Contract Award Notice 678368 ocds-r6ebe6-0000676946 24/12/2021 09:13 OJEU Contract Award Notice 677893 ocds-r6ebe6-0000677893 21/12/2021 09:16 Contract Award Notice 676851 ocds-r6ebe6-0000674721 10/12/2021 14:41 OJEU Contract Award Notice 672556 ocds-r6ebe6-0000672556 03/11/2021 15:30 Contract Award Notice 671955 ocds-r6ebe6-0000671955 29/10/2021 12:46 Contract Award Notice 671911 ocds-r6ebe6-0000665840 28/10/2021 21:59 Quick Quote 670001 ocds-r6ebe6-0000650165 25/10/2021 13:51 Contract Award Notice 661023 ocds-r6ebe6-0000641423 05/10/2021 12:27 OJEU Social And Other Specific Services Public Contracts Contract Award Notice Award Of Contract 669326 ocds-r6ebe6-0000643599 05/10/2021 11:04 OJEU Social And Other Specific Services Public Contracts Contract Award Notice Award Of Contract 668518 ocds-r6ebe6-0000644706 29/09/2021 11:08 Contract Award Notice 661335 ocds-r6ebe6-0000645405 22/07/2021 08:37 OJEU Contract Award Notice 652910 ocds-r6ebe6-0000599828 05/05/2021 10:53 OJEU Contract Award Notice Page 95 of 390
Page 96
652481 ocds-r6ebe6-0000611731 30/04/2021 11:15 OJEU Social And Other Specific Services Public Contracts Contract Award Notice Award Of Contract 652476 ocds-r6ebe6-0000639198 30/04/2021 11:11 OJEU Social And Other Specific Services Public Contracts Contract Award Notice Award Of Contract Page 96 of 390
Page 97
Title Authority Contract Type Main CPV Code Provision of Home to School Taxi Services Midlothian Council 1 Services Contract 60 Sale of ground with a requirement to enter into a contract for the Design and Construction of 18 No. units for social rent Midlothian Council 2 Works Contract 45 Supply of Windows and Doors Midlothian Council 0 Supply Contract 44 Sale of ground with a requirement to enter into a contract for the Design and Construction of 53 No. homes for social rent Midlothian Council 2 Works Contract 45 Supply of 3 RCVs Midlothian Council 0 Supply Contract 34 Award of Mobile Voice & Data Services Midlothian Council 1 Services Contract 64 Award of QUOTE/21/26 - Tyne Esk Scottish Rural Parliament Project Midlothian Council 1 Services Contract - Provision of Early Learning & Childcare and Childcare Training Midlothian Council 1 Services Contract 80 MID-20-54 - Care at Home Midlothian Council 1 Services Contract 85 MID-21-04 - School Counselling Service Midlothian Council 1 Services Contract 85 Employee Wellbeing Services Midlothian Council 1 Services Contract 85 Weatherforecasting, Bureau and Associated Services Midlothian Council 1 Services Contract 71 Management of Supported Temporary Accommodation Units Service and Tenancy Support ITT Midlothian Council 1 Services Contract 85 Page 97 of 390
Page 98
MID-20-03 - Community Mental Health Support Services Midlothian Council 1 Services Contract 85 MID-20-14 - Midlothian Carer Services Midlothian Council 1 Services Contract 85 Page 98 of 390
Page 99
Authority Name Phone Email Midlothian Council Barbara Foxwell +44 1312707500 barbara.foxwell@midlothian.gov.uk Midlothian Council +44 1312707500 procurement@midlothian.gov.uk Midlothian Council +44 1312707500 procurement@midlothian.gov.uk Midlothian Council Graham Halliday +44 1312707500 procurement@midlothian.gov.uk Midlothian Council +44 1312707500 procurement@midlothian.gov.uk Midlothian Council Barbara Foxwell +44 1312707500 Barbara.Foxwell@midlothian.gov.uk Midlothian Council Jonathan Livingstone +44 0131 270 7500 procurement@midlothian.gov.uk Midlothian Council Barbara Foxwell +44 1312707500 barbara.foxwell@midlothian.gov.uk Midlothian Council Hayley Bell hayley.bell@midlothian.gov.uk Midlothian Council Hayley Bell +44 1312707500 hayley.bell@midlothian.gov.uk Midlothian Council Barbara Foxwell +44 1312707500 Barbara.Foxwell@midlothian.gov.uk Midlothian Council Graham Halliday +44 1312707500 graham.halliday@midlothian.gov.uk Midlothian Council Hayley Bell +44 1312713657 hayley.bell@midlothian.gov.uk Page 99 of 390
Page 100
Midlothian Council Hayley Bell +44 1315615446 hayley.bell@midlothian.gov.uk Midlothian Council Hayley Bell +44 1312707500 hayley.bell@midlothian.gov.uk Page 100 of 390
Page 101
Authority Type Main Activity Award Criteria Offers Received Total Value 3 Regional or local authority 1 General public services - 32 2000000 3 Regional or local authority 1 General public services - 1 2335385 3 Regional or local authority 1 General public services - 3 2000000 3 Regional or local authority 1 General public services - 1 8237160 3 Regional or local authority 1 General public services - 1 501573 3 Regional or local authority 1 General public services - 1 600000 - - - 3 30050 3 Regional or local authority 10 Education - 1 90000 3 Regional or local authority 1 General public services - 6 / 3 / 5 34484636 3 Regional or local authority 1 General public services - 2 1531460 3 Regional or local authority 1 General public services - 4 - 3 Regional or local authority 1 General public services - 3 - 3 Regional or local authority 7 Housing and community amenities - 2 7239171.72 Page 101 of 390
Page 102
3 Regional or local authority 1 General public services - 3 / 2 / 2 2820875 3 Regional or local authority 1 General public services - 3 / 3 1530191 Page 102 of 390
Page 103
Lowest Offer Highest Offer Currency Including VAT? Contract Awarded To - - GBP n/a Morgans private hire (GB) / Academy Cabs (GB) / Arrow taxis (GB) / Town & Country Cab Co (GB) / midlothian travel (GB) / Chauffeur Drive (Scotland) Ltd (GB) / Bodyshop Edinburgh T/A Coach Hire Edinburgh (GB) / KH TAXIS (GB) / Penicuik Taxis 2016 (GB) / Abbey Cabs Dalkeith (GB) / 1212 Taxis (GB) / Premier taxis (GB) / burgh taxis (GB) / fm transport (GB) / Midlothian Private Hire Taxis (GB) / United Private Hire LTD (GB) / Dalkeith Taxis (GB) / ac's taxis (GB) / G force taxis (GB) / Alan Stirling Private Hire (GB) / Midlothian Taxis Dot Com Limited (GB) / PRO RACE SCOTLAND LTD T/A LOTHIAN CARS (GB) / JED PRIVATE HIRE (GB) / ABC Minibus Hire (GB) / Swift Private Hire (GB) / Jtscars ltd (GB) / Aerial ABW Cabs Ltd (GB) - - GBP n/a Dandara (GB) - - GBP n/a CMS Windows and Doors (GB) - - GBP n/a BDW Trading Ltd (GB) - - GBP n/a Dennis Eagle Ltd (GB) - - GBP n/a Vodafone (GB) - - GBP n/a Community Enterprise (CEL Trading) (GB) - - GBP n/a Edinburgh College (GB) - - GBP n/a McSence Limited (GB) / Call-in Homecare Ltd (GB) / Cera Care Operations Scotland Ltd (GB) - - GBP n/a MYPAS (GB) 108492.8 120571.1 GBP n/a The MCL Group (int) Limited T/A MCL Medics (GB) 581275.36 953964.36 GBP n/a MetDesk Limited (GB) - - GBP n/a with YOU (GB) Page 103 of 390
Page 104
- - GBP n/a Health in Mind (GB) / Health in Mind (GB) / Penumbra (GB) - - GBP n/a VOCAL (GB) / VOCAL (GB) Page 104 of 390
Page 105
Procedure Framework or DPS Justification for no prior publication Open Framework - Award of a contract without prior publication of a call for competition n/a The works, supplies or services can be provided only by a particular economic operator for the following reason: absence of competition for technical reasons Single stage procedure n/a - Award of a contract without prior publication of a call for competition n/a The works, supplies or services can be provided only by a particular economic operator for the following reason: absence of competition for technical reasons Single stage procedure n/a - Single stage procedure n/a - n/a n/a - Single stage procedure n/a - Open n/a - Open n/a - Single stage procedure n/a - Open n/a - Open n/a - Page 105 of 390
Page 106
Open n/a - Open n/a - Page 106 of 390
Page 107
Regulated Procurement YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES Page 107 of 390
Page 108
YES YES Page 108 of 390
Page 109
Subject Matter Title of Contract Contract Start Date Property and Facilities Management M&E Term Contract Sep-23 Roads Highway maintenance Mar-23 Construction Housing Newbattle Jan-23 Construction Easthouses Primary School Mar-23 Construction Intermediate Care, day Care and Extra Care Facilities Polton Street Mar-23 Property and Facilities Management Woodburn Primary School Mar-23 Property and Facilities Management Mayfield St Lukes Mar-23 Property and Facilities Management Beeslack High School Dec-23 Property and Facilities Management Housing Newton Church Road Danderhall Apr-23 Property and Facilities Management Housing Bonnyrigg High Street Mar-23 Property and Facilities Management Housing Stobhill Road Gorebridge Apr-23 Property and Facilities Management A701 Link Road Jan-24 Property and Facilities Management Hillend Main Building Jun-23 Property and Facilities Management Hillend Glamping Units Jun-23 Fleet Planer/Cold Milling Machine Jul-22 Property and Facilities Management Hillend Civils Utilities and Minor Works Dec-22 Land and Countryside Supply of 4 Mowers Dec-22 Land and Countryside Supply of 3 Ride on Mowers Scags Dec-22 Page 109 of 390
Page 110
Lighting Supply and Installation of Street Lighting to Various Locations Nov-22 Lighting Traffic Equiment Maintenance and Support Services Nov-22 BMS Supply of Windows and Doors Jun-22 BMS Provision of Gas Audit Services in Domestic and Commercial Properties May-22 Land and Countryside Purchase of 2 Ride on Mowers May-22 Waste Garden Waste Disposal May-22 Construction Dalkeith Centre Stage 2 masterplan May-22 Lighting Public Domain CCTV Infrastructure May-22 Waste Treatment of Dry and Mixed Recycling Jan-24 Waste Treatment of Glass Jan-24 Estates Valuation of Houses and Land May-23 BMS Supply of Fire Doors Jul-23 BMS Engineering Inspection Services Jul-23 Construction Modular Phase 2 Apr-23 Construction Roslin PS Apr-24 Waste Bins for treatment of paper/card Mar-23 PLACE - Housing/Homeless Youth Homeless Support and Prevention Service Support Jun 2023 (est) Adult Services Care at Home Services Staffing Provision Apr 2023 (est) Adult Services Residential Care Home for Older People Services Staffing Provision Apr 2024 (est) Adult Services Primrose Lodge - Complex Disability Support, 4 Units & 2 Respite Units Aug 2023 (est) Adult Services Mental Health & Carer Support Services Aug 2023 (est) Adult Services Older People Day Care Services Aug 2024 (est) Adult Services Advocacy Services Aug 2024 (est) Adult Services Disability Day Care Services Aug 2024 (est) Childrens Services Social Work External Staff Provision Apr 2023 (est) Childrens Services Afterschool and out of hours school childcare Aug 2024 (est) Children's Services Advocacy Services Aug 2024 (est) Education Early Years Nursery & Childcare Provision Framework Aug 2024 (est) Education Therapy & Counselling Services Framework Aug 2024 (est) Education ASN Visually Impaired Support Aug 2024 (est) PLACE - Housing/Homeless Supported Accommodation & Tenancy Support Apr 2024 (est) Page 110 of 390
Page 111
Estimated Total Contract Value £4,600,000 £4,000,000 £23,000,000 £23,000,000 £22,272 £13,250,000 £47,000,000 £120,000,000 £4,000,000 £4,000,000 £6,000,000 £30,000,000 £11,000,000 £1,000,000 £300,000 £5,000,000 £135,000 £55,000 Page 111 of 390
Page 112
£3,500,000 £2,000,000 £6,990,000 £154,000 £67,800 £510,000 £54,000 £400,000 £1,000,000 £1,000,000 £1,300,000 £200,000 £1,000,000 £4,000,000 £1,100,000 £200,000 TBC TBC £3,200,000 £1.2M TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC TBC £7M PA TBC TBC TBC Page 112 of 390
Page 113
Type Retender Retender Page 113 of 390
Page 114
New service to be tendered TBC - Scotland Excel Framework call off TBC - Scotland Excel Framework call off New service to be tendered New services - tendering unlikely, service design and procurement route TBC. Existing services to be tendered Existing services to be tendered Existing services to be tendered TBC - Scotland Excel Framework call off Existing services to be tendered Existing services to be tendered Existing services to be tendered Existing services to be tendered Existing services to be tendered New or redesign of services Page 114 of 390
Page 115
Status Ongoing Potential call off from Scottish Government Civil Engineering Works and Associated Services Potential Hubco appointment extent of value to be determined likely to be staged Potential Hubco appointment extent of value to be determined likely to be staged Page 115 of 390
Page 116
Page 116 of 390
Page 117
Midlothian Council Tuesday 13 December 2022 Standing Orders Working Group Report by Alan Turpie, Monitoring Officer Report for Decision 1 Recommendations The Council is asked to: i) approve the Terms of Reference of the Standing Orders Working Group, as set out in Appendix B; ii) appoint the members of the Standing Orders Working Group; iii) approve the proposed interim changes to the Police and Fire Rescue Board (as set out at 3.6) whilst the review of Standing Orders is undertaken; and iv) note the outcome of the meeting of the Leaders Group on 29 November 2022, as set out at 3.8. 2 Purpose of Report/Executive Summary The purpose of this report is to update Members of the outcome of the Leaders Group discussion on webcasting of meetings, to seek approval of the draft terms of reference for the Standing Orders Working Group and to agree the membership of the Group. Date 01 December 2022 Report Contact: Alan Turpie, Monitoring Officer alan.turpie@midlothian.gov.uk Page 117 of 390
Page 118
2 3 Background/Main Body of Report Standing Orders Working Group 3.1 The Standing Orders Working Group (SOWG), chaired by the Provost, met on 8 occasions since its first meeting in September 2019. Following those meetings a revised set of Standing Orders was prepared as were an updated Scheme of Administration and Scheme of Delegation. 3.2 Since the preparation of those documents, there has been the Local Government Elections in May 2022 and the election of a new Council as well as a number of other supervening events which are not reflected in the Standing Orders. It is therefore considered that further meetings of the Working Group take place. 3.3 A draft remit for the SOWG has been prepared (attached as Appendix B). The proposed remit is as follows: • undertake a review of Standing Orders, the Scheme of Administration and the Scheme of Delegation; • determine the review process; the frequency of meetings and the timescale for reporting back to the Council on it findings; • be assisted by officers identified by the Executive Director, Place to include the Monitoring Officer and Democratic Services Team Leader; • request reports from officers to inform the terms of remit; • record meetings by way of a Minute which will be submitted to the next meeting of the Group for approval; and • recommend amendments to the Standing Orders, Scheme of Administration and Scheme of Delegation for consideration by the Council. The draft Remit is referred to Members for consideration. 3.4 The proposed membership of the SOWG is outlined in the draft remit. Members are requested to agree the membership and, once agreed, to nominate members to serve on the Group. Police and Fire and Rescue Board – proposed interim changes 3.5 The current remit of the Police and Fire and Rescue Board is ‘This Board will report to Midlothian Council and link in to the wider Midlothian Community Planning arrangements. This governance structure of the Board will comply with the requirements of the Police and Fire Reform (Scotland) Act 2012.” Page 118 of 390
Page 119
3 This includes: • Scrutiny of Police and Fire Plans • Performance Reporting and statistical reports of complaints and policing and fire and rescue Midlothian; • Notification of any Midlothian policing and fire rescue matters subject to independent national review bodies; • Providing comments/replies on any consultation documents pertaining to policing and fire and rescue services; and • Recommending improvements in local policing and fire and rescue service. 3.6 In the absence of a completed review of Standing Orders, the Scheme of Administration and the Scheme of Delegation and resulting recommended amendments, Council is asked to approve an interim change to the current remit in the following terms: • Performing Reporting of activities of Midlothian Council Protective Services It is proposed that the Police and Fire and Rescue Board receive regular performance reporting from the Council’s Protective Services, which draws together the activity of: • Public Health and Environmental Protection • Business Regulation (including Trading Standards) • Health, Safety and Resilience These Regulatory Services work closely with Police and Fire Services and by reviewing the performance of all services holistically, this will foster stronger partnership working and deliver better outcomes for keeping Midlothian’s citizens free from risk and harm and ensuring public safety. Webcasting of meetings 3.7 At the Council Meeting on 15 November 2022, it was agreed to refer the question of webcasting meetings to the SOWG with the intention that a report be placed before this meeting of the Council. As there was not a meeting of the SOWG scheduled to take place between the meetings, officers placed a report on these matters before a meeting of the Leaders Group on 29 November 2022. 3.8 The minute of that discussion is attached as Appendix C to this report and members are asked to note the decisions of the Group Leaders’ meeting as follows: • To webcast all governance meetings for public items while there is no cost involved. • General Purposes Meetings will not be broadcast if only private business is on the agenda. The public element will be broadcast if there is public business otherwise like all meetings the broadcast will stop before going into private business. Page 119 of 390
Page 120
4 • Licensing Board will not be broadcast. • Police and Fire and Rescue Board will not be broadcast. • MIJB will not be broadcast. • An update on this discussion regarding webcasting will be reported to Council at its December meeting as well as a report on Hybrid Working and the costs (see Hybrid Working report as a separate item on today’s agenda). 4 Report Implications (Resource, Digital and Risk) 4.1 Resource There are no resource implications arising from this report. 4.2 Digital There are no digital implications arising from this report. 4.3 Risk There are no risks inherent in this report. 4.4 Ensuring Equalities (if required a separate IIA must be completed) This report does not recommend any change to policy or practice and therefore does not require an Equalities Impact Assessment. 4.5 Additional Report Implications See Appendix A Appendices Appendix A – Additional Report Implications Appendix B – SOWG Terms of Reference Appendix C – Note of Leaders Meeting Page 120 of 390
Page 121
5 APPENDIX A – Report Implications A.1 Key Priorities within the Single Midlothian Plan Not applicable A.2 Key Drivers for Change Key drivers addressed in this report: Holistic Working Hub and Spoke Modern Sustainable Transformational Preventative Asset-based Continuous Improvement One size fits one None of the above A.3 Key Delivery Streams Key delivery streams addressed in this report: One Council Working with you, for you Preventative and Sustainable Efficient and Modern Innovative and Ambitious None of the above A.4 Delivering Best Value The report does not directly impact on Delivering Best Value A.5 Involving Communities and Other Stakeholders The report does not directly relate to involving communities A.6 Impact on Performance and Outcomes The report does not directly impact on Midlothian Council’s performance and outcomes A.7 Adopting a Preventative Approach Not applicable A.8 Supporting Sustainable Development Not applicable Page 121 of 390
Page 122
Page 122 of 390
Page 123
Meeting held on Tuesday 29 November 2022 Webcasting Present: Councillor Parry, Councillor Milligan, Councillor Virgo, Alan Turpie, Kevin Anderson, Saty Kaur, Marco Reece-Heal, Janet Ritchie (Action Note) Saty Kaur advised that this meeting was to discuss the Webcasting report presented to Council in November and to consider the three options outlined within the report. This was separate to Hybrid Working and advised that another report would be presented to Council regarding costs for Hybrid Working. Discussion took place regarding costings, issues with Quasi-Judicial meetings and the importance of being transparent. It was noted that the neighbouring Councils were webcasting more meetings than Midlothian Council and at the moment it was not costing Midlothian Council anything to webcast. Marco Reece-Heal confirmed although this was not costing the Council anything at present this may not be the case in the near future. Further discussion took place regarding webcasting, MS Teams and audio recording. It was highlighted that the audio recording equipment in the Chambers was very old and there was uncertainty how long this would be able to be used. It was also highlighted that the webcasting kit in the Chambers was old and at the moment we are webcasting however there is no support service contract in place therefore no service for this. It was noted that conducting in-person meetings was an interim arrangement until officers reported to Council to present options and costs for hybrid working. It was agreed by all three Group Leaders: • To webcast all governance meetings for public items while there is no cost involved. • General Purposes Meetings will not be broadcast if only private business is on the agenda. The public element will be broadcast if there is public business otherwise like all meetings the broadcast will stop before going into private business • Licensing Board will not be broadcast • Police Fire and Rescue Board will not be broadcast • MIJB will not be broadcast • An update on this discussion regarding webcasting will be reported to Council at its December meeting as well as a report on Hybrid Working and the costs. Page 123 of 390
Page 124
Page 124 of 390
Page 125
Short Life Working Group on Review of Standing Orders Membership The Working Group shall comprise of 5 Elected Members, currently on the following basis: • 2 SNP Councillors • 2 Labour Councillors and • 1 Conservative Councillor. Terms of Reference for the Working Group The Short Life Working Group will: • undertake a review of Standing Orders, the Scheme of Administration and the Scheme of Delegation; • determine the review process; the frequency of meetings and the timescale for reporting back to the Council on it findings; • be assisted by officers identified by the Executive Director, Place to include the Monitoring Officer and Democratic Services Team Leader; • request reports from officers to inform the terms of remit below; • record meetings by way of a Minute which will be submitted to the next meeting of the Group for approval; and • recommend amendments to the Standing Orders, Scheme of Administration and Scheme of Delegation for consideration by the Council. Remit of the Working Group The Short Life Working Group shall: • Note consequent amendments to the Standing Orders following the Council Meeting on 22 May 2022 • Note consequent amendments to the Scheme of Administration following the Council Meeting on 22 May 2022 • Note consequent amendments to the Scheme of Delegation following the review of senior management structure of the Council • Review and discuss further amendments to Standing Orders, Scheme of Administration and Scheme of Delegation. • Consider future arrangements for meetings of the Council including hybrid meetings • Consider arrangements for appointments of senior officials by the Council • Consider arrangements for review of the audit and performance review functions of the Council • Recommend a Schedule of Meeting dates to the Council • Recommend specific aspects Standing Orders, Scheme of Administration and Scheme of Delegation for review Page 125 of 390
Page 126
First Meeting At the first meeting of the Short Life Group the following matters require to be addressed:- • Appointment of Chair • Establish a quorum for meetings • Agree areas be reviewed and the phasing to allow Members to concentrate on each topic • a schedule of meeting dates Page 126 of 390
Page 127
Midlothian Council 13 December 2022 Item 8.5 Learning Estate Strategy Update Report by Fiona Robertson, Executive Director, Children, Young People & Partnerships Report for Decision 1 Recommendations The Council is recommended to note the content of this update report and the progress made towards the delivery of the Midlothian Council Learning Estate Strategy 2017-2047; and a) Agree the prioritisation of Learning Estate projects through to 2027/28 as outlined in Section 5 of this report in order to meet essential learning estate requirements over that period which will be the subject of review and regular reporting to Council, also to; b) Ask officers to undertake further work on the financial implications of the prioritised projects so that these can be considered as part of the Council’s Capital Strategy and General Service Capital Plan report to be presented to Council, and; c) Ask officers to develop further the Learning Estate Additional Support Needs (ASN) Strategy as outlined in Section 6 of this report and bring a report back to Council for further consideration. 2 Purpose of Report/Executive Summary To provide an update to Council on the 2017-2047 Midlothian Learning Estate Strategy and ask Council to agree the prioritisation of projects as outlined within the report. Date: 28 November 2022 Report Contact: Fiona Robertson, Executive Director, Children, Young People & Partnerships fiona.robertson@midlothian.gov.uk Page 127 of 390
Page 128
2 3 Background 3.1 A strategic approach to the Learning Estate is required to ensure that the Council meets its statutory duty to ensure that there is adequate and efficient provision of school education in the area. The education authority must ensure that there is a sustainable learning estate plan, which maximises educational benefits for all children and young people. Developing a programme to maintain and sustain existing learning estate facilities as well as delivering new builds as required, removes associated risks, such as poor condition school buildings and backlogs in building maintenance and lifecycle. This approach also better informs the Capital Plan, investment and budget setting process. 3.2 Midlothian Council is committed to delivering on its vision and ambition for its communities and understands the important role of sustainable, vibrant learning communities in realising its objectives and goals. The Council also wishes to deliver on its commitment to improving outcomes for children and young people across all communities. A ‘One Council’ strategic approach, supported by our key stakeholders and partners is being taken to ensure our learning estate supports the Council to achieve its vision for all children, young people and its communities. 3.3 The 2017-2047 Midlothian Learning Estate strategy was agreed at a meeting of full Council on 26th September 2017 (Appendix 1). Council agreed the short-term strategy (2017-2023) as well as acknowledging the essential requirement and benefits of preparing a long-term strategy for the Learning Estate. Council noted the indicative strategy for the medium and longer terms, which were to be the subject of review and regular reporting to Council. 3.4 An update to the 2017 Learning Estate Strategy was presented to full Council on 7th May 2019, where Council was asked to note the work that officers were undertaking, as well as the following changes to the strategy: • A third non-denominational school for Dalkeith, located at Kippielaw, two-stream (Council, 8 May 2018); • A third non-denominational school for Mayfield Easthouses, located on the former site of Newbattle High School, two-stream (Council, 12 February 2019); • The replacement of the Mayfield School Campus (Council 8 May 2018); • An extension to Newtongrange Primary School to bring it up to three-stream (Council, 12 February 2018) A further update to the Learning Estate Strategy was presented to Council on 20th August 2019. The purpose of that report was to update Council on the work undertaken to review and prioritise the Learning Estate Strategy projects in order to arrive at a more affordable position. Page 128 of 390
Page 129
3 Progress to date 3.5 The Council has responded positively to the significant challenges presented by one of the highest population increases in the country, ensuring adequacy of enabling infrastructure and more specifically provision across our Learning Estate has been a central pillar of work undertaken to deliver the approved Local Development Plan (LDP). This has included the delivery of a number of new primary schools, including Gore Glen, Bilston, Danderhall, Early Burnbrae, St Mary’s RC PS and Paradykes. Since the 2017 Learning Estate Strategy was agreed, the Council has invested significantly to provide enhanced learning environments for children and young people. Developer contributions and Scottish Government funding have supplemented this investment. Further detail on the scale and scope of the Council’s investment can be found in Appendix 2. 3.6 Since the development and publication of the Midlothian Council Learning Estate Strategy 2017-2047 the Scottish Government published the National Learning Estate Strategy – Connecting People, Places and Learning 2019, in which they set out 10 guiding principles which aimed to support local authorities with their prioritisation for planning and investment in the learning estate. The Scottish Government’s ten Guiding Principles were factored into our successful Learning Estate Investment Programme (LEIP) submissions for the replacement Beeslack Community High School, refurbishment of Penicuik High School and new Mayfield campus. In December 2020, Scottish Government confirmed that they would provide funding support for the replacement of both Penicuik High School and Mayfield and St Luke’s Primary schools in addition to previous funding awarded for a replacement to Beeslack CHS. 3.7 The COVID-19 pandemic, closure of schools and subsequent restrictions on access to school buildings, has had a significant impact on the progress of planned learning estate projects. As a result, the timeline for the delivery of a number of projects has slipped leading to additional pressures on the school estate, particularly capacity in some areas of the county. Revised Learning Estate Investment Plan 3.8 This Learning Estate Strategy update retains the clear focus and intent set out within the initial strategy, mainly to deliver high-quality 21st century learning environments, which meet the needs of individual children and the wider community. These improved, flexible and adaptable learning environments will support learning, teaching and assessment across the curriculum as well as providing safe, nurturing environments that supports children’s wellbeing. This is even more important given the impact of the pandemic on children’s social and emotional needs. It continues to be our aspiration that these facilities will enhance and support communities. Page 129 of 390
Page 130
4 3.9 Despite huge improvements in the physical fabric of many buildings and the delivery of new Primary and Secondary schools, it is recognised that further improvement and delivery of new builds is required to enable the Council to deliver efficient and adequate education provision. Work is progressing to ensure future investment in the School Estate is planned, managed and delivered in line with empirical data and an overall strategy for the Learning Estate. This report also highlights the many challenges facing the Learning Estate in Midlothian and seeks approval for an updated Learning Estate Investment Plan which is fit for purpose, responsive to changing population patterns, sustainable in the longer term, and accessible to all. The strategy will provide learning environments to deliver 21st century education as part of a wider place-making agenda. 3.10 The learning estate is a significant and valuable resource for the communities within Midlothian. The ongoing revenue costs for the learning estate and the capital costs of providing facilities fit for the future are significant. It is therefore vital, in light of these material costs, that the Learning Estate is managed and planned in an efficient, effective and strategic manner and that all priorities meet the wider strategic objectives of the Council as well as the needs of our communities. 4 Revised Learning Estate Investment Plan Considerations The updated and revised proposals to the Learning Estate Strategy 2017-2047 take cognisance of the need to having a compliant, well- maintained, suitable, sufficient, sustainable and accessible Learning Estate. The following national and local performance data have been reviewed to inform the update to the Learning Estate Strategy 2017- 2047 and project prioritisation process. 4.1 Core Facts Robust data and background information must underpin the Learning Estate Strategy and the Scottish Government Core Facts Guidance (November 2017), sets out the objectives for the 21st century school; to deliver better public services that focus on: 1. The child at the centre – meeting the needs of individual children; 2. The school at the heart of the community – meeting the needs of communities. Core facts measure condition, sufficiency and suitability and enable Midlothian Council to meet the immediate objective of capturing a broad strategic picture of the Learning Estate. They are a critical factor in determining investment priorities and are reported annually to Scottish Government. These core facts allow the Council to measure the Learning Estate performance against all other local authorities in Page 130 of 390
Page 131
5 Scotland against a National Framework of Performance Criteria. Details of current school condition and suitability can be found in Appendix 3. These surveys are required to be carried out on a rolling 5- year cycle; this will highlight the lifecycle costs of each building and ensure the Council produces robust asset management plans. This information should be included in annual update reports to Council. Condition Building condition will continue to be established by assessing the performance of individual elements from A – D scoring, where: A Good Performing well and operating efficiently; B Satisfactory Performing adequately but showing minor deterioration; C Poor Showing major defects and/or not operating adequately; D Bad Economic life expired and/or risk of failure. In addition to bringing clarity and consistency to the condition survey process, the refreshed Condition Core Fact Guidance also stipulates that a full condition survey of the school estate should be carried out at least every five years and, that between the full condition surveys, the condition data should be reviewed at least on an annual basis, using a risk based assessment. Dates are also to be recorded to demonstrate when full surveys and annual intermediate surveys have been undertaken, with these to be provided to Scottish Government when requested as part of the Annual Core Fact Return. The refreshed Condition Core Fact Guidance also puts an onus upon local authorities to demonstrate that key statutory, and non-statutory, property compliance matters are addressed to demonstrate compliance as part of a greater emphasis on safer buildings. As part of future Core Fact Returns, local authorities are to provide inspection dates for the undernoted items with physical, electronic, copies to be provided upon request: - Asbestos - Electrical - Fire Safety Risk Assessment - Gas Appliances - Health and Safety File - Water Hygiene and Safety Suitability Suitability is a measure of whether a school is fit for the purpose of delivering the curriculum. That is whether the design and layout enhance its function and use, whether there is space and scope to accommodate all the pre-school, day-school and after-school demands and services and whether it is ‘inclusive’ and accessible. The Page 131 of 390
Page 132
6 assessment covers five key areas for primary schools with an additional key area included in the secondary assessment. These are: General Learning and Teaching, Practical Learning and Teaching (Secondary only), Internal Social, Internal Facilities, External Social and External Facilities. These key areas are then broken down by relevant subjects/areas that impact the title area. Subjects/areas are then scored on the following criteria: o Functionality o Accessibility o Environmental conditions o Safety and Security o Fixed furniture and fittings Each individual aspect covered is graded as follows: Grade Definition A Performing well and operating efficiently B Performing well but with minor problems C Showing major problems and/or not performing optimally D Does not support delivery of service, seriously impedes delivery of activities Sufficiency Sufficiency is concerned with capacity of the School Estate and has three elements: physical capacity, the school roll and projected trend and projected occupancy. In order to maintain our schools to ensure they have good, an A or B rating, for Condition and Suitability, there requires to be an annual capital allocation to replace lifecycle elements such as windows, roofs, heating systems when they are due to be life expired. Without this continued investment, schools will lapse into poor condition and suitability buildings and will be costly and problematic to upgrade. With planned, strategic investment of the estate that we wish to maintain, the life of these assets will be extended; we will ensure they are fit to provide a high quality education for all; and our communities will continue to benefit from the local facilities. It is normal practice for Council’s to have a 5 year Asset Management plan in place for each individual school. This would ensure investment is focused on sustaining and where possible improving the performance of these critical assets, prioritising compliance and condition. It is proposed that officers from across Place and Children, Young People and Partnerships Directorates develop a Learning Estate Asset Page 132 of 390
Page 133
7 Management Plan to identify the establishments that will benefit from investment. 4.2 School Roll Projections The Education Service commenced a review of the school roll projection methodology December 2021. This review was undertaken to refresh and update school roll projections, evaluate existing methodologies and calculations. The methodology and data was then benchmarked against other local authorities with similar levels of demographic growth. As would be expected levels of accuracy can reduce over the years, so it is prudent to take a 5 year roll projection as a guide. The data is reviewed bi-annually against the Housing Land Audit in June and census data in September. Birth data and stay on rates are also factored in. In Midlothian, we have a number of schools at or close to 100% capacity and some will breach their stated capacity in the next few years. These schools will require additional classes and core accommodation to ensure they are suitable and the Council fulfils its statutory duties. These capacity breaches are one of the main priorities to address as part of this update. 4.3 Inclusion The following is an extract from the Learning Estate Strategy 2017-47 “In line with Scottish Government’s continuing presumption of mainstream education, planning for inclusion must be at the forefront of new school design. Recommendations around all pupils being able to be educated within their own local community and not being transported outwith will mean equipping our local communities with the environment and resources to get it right for every Midlothian child. In Midlothian, we are progressing the implementation of Nurture in both Primary and Secondary Schools. Careful consideration of placement within the building is key to getting it right for specifically designed nurture spaces. In addition to this we must plan for the increase in pupils with Additional Support Needs as the pupil population grows, in Scotland 1 in 3 pupils have an additional support need, the levels of pupils with significant complex needs and severe and profound needs will increase in turn and this will require Midlothian Council to evaluate the current specialist school provision (Saltersgate) for severe and profound, as well as our complex needs enhanced provisions. New secondary schools should be able to be self sufficient in supporting pupils with a range of complex needs, and planning of location and size of these spaces must be done in conjunction with specialist staff. Moving forward, we aspire to ensure that each learning community is equipped to support pupils with a range of complex needs in Primary and Secondary Schools, therefore communities that currently do not have complex needs provision need to have this planned into future School builds where identified. Page 133 of 390
Page 134
8 We also have a growing number of pupils that require alternative education provision, numerous factors contribute to this from social & emotional needs and mental health. Therefore we should be planning strategies that allow these pupils to remain within Midlothian Council for their education, this will require settings where there can be a focus on life skills and skills for work, in additional to being able to deliver classroom based learning.’ Whilst this remains our intent, currently, many schools, including recent new builds, do not have the nurture space or specialist areas to support children and young people who require additional support for learning. An extensive review of the ASN learning estate has been carried out with clear recommendations as to how to improve existing provision as well as provide for increasing need. The Vision for Inclusion set out in the original strategy remains sound and now informs all planned extensions, refurbishments and new builds. It is important to recognise that the delivery of an inclusive learning estate requires investment in order for the Council to meet its statutory duties with regard to the ASL A ct. When briefing and planning for our new schools such as Easthouses PS, Mayfield Campus and the replacement Beeslack CHS we are ensuring that nurture spaces as well as specialist provision are integral to the design. This forward planning will allow the council to be more strategic regarding ASN capacity planning with the potential to reduce the number of children transported out of Midlothian to receive specialist education. Midlothian Council is experiencing unprecedented challenge to provide the learning environments for children and young people with additional support for learning needs. Further detail can be found in Appendix 4. The prioritisation of learning estate projects takes account of the need to provide for children and young people who require additional support within mainstream and more specialist settings. The following projects have been prioritised as enabling the Council to meet the needs of children and young people and its statutory duties. • Replacement Beeslack CHS • Mayfield Campus • Easthouses PS • Hawthornden refurbishment and extension (to enable Lasswade HS provision to move into refurbished Mount Esk nursery) • Shawfair schools 4.4 Digital Inclusion and Learning Midlothian Council’s decision to invest in the Equipped for Learning programme, providing every child with a digital device P1-S6 is making a significant contribution to equipping our learners with skills required for life and work beyond school. Digital technology gives pupils the tools to take greater control of their learning with the ability to access materials on their device at any time. By using the Google workspace platform, widely recognised across industry, pupils will be empowered to develop digital skills for the workplace. Midlothian Council is at the forefront of digital learning and we must ensure our estate supports and enables this in the future. As each Page 134 of 390
Page 135
9 learner has a digital device, we can look at alternative methods of curriculum delivery to ensure all learners can have access to a broad curriculum offer. The brief and design for new schools at Shawfair, Mayfield and Beeslack, will look to provide learning theatres which can cast lessons to other schools in the authority, meaning pupils can access a broader range of courses and qualifications. The education service will continue to liaise with central digital services to develop plans and the investment in infrastructure required to support the Equipped for Learning programme and enhanced delivery of the curriculum through digital technology. 5 Prioritising Learning Estate Investment Projects The Learning Estate Strategy 2017-47 investment proposals have been prioritised taking into account demographic change, impact of the pandemic and revised data. LEIP (Learning Estate Investment Plan) funded projects LEIP projects are part funded by the Scottish Government with a stated delivery timeframe. Due to the impact of the pandemic, some flexibility has been built into the timeframes. The Scottish Government has provided LEIP funding to support the delivery of: • A replacement Beeslack CHS (Estimated completion 2026/27) • A new Mayfield Primary Campus which incorporates Mayfield PS, St Luke’s RCPS and Mayfield Nursery (Estimated Completion 2025) • A refurbishment and extension of Penicuik HS (Estimated completion 2027/28) School Capacity Breaches We have a number of schools across the estate where the school capacity will breach if investment projects are not progressed resulting in insufficient pupil places to fulfil our statutory responsibilities. These schools are: • Kings Park PS breaches August 2023 • Rosewell PS breaches August 2024 • Roslin PS breaches August 2024 • Woodburn PS breaches August 2024 • Bilston PS breaches August 2026 • Mauricewood PS breaches August 2027 Projects in Planning These projects will continue to be monitored and plans progressed by Education in conjunction with Place Directorate colleagues. Some of the projects listed in this tranche are significant infrastructure projects and will require a lead in period to plan, design and fund the proposals. Page 135 of 390
Page 136
10 Some projects have funding in the Council Capital Plan or secured through developer contributions. • HS12 PS Bonnyrigg Housing site not yet in progress, school anticipated to be fully developer funded to accommodate pupils from this development. • Gorebridge HS – an option appraisal to identify a suitable portion of land to provide a new secondary school to serve the Gorebridge catchment. Require to identify project team to undertake informal consultation with the community and key stakeholders to inform future development of the school. • Shawfair Schools’ solution – A number of schools are required to accommodate the pupils from the Shawfair development’s, including a 3-18 campus and a separate primary school. • Hawthornden PS extension and ASN works – plan to develop dedicated bespoke ASN provision and future school expansion. • Newtongrange PS refurbishment – complete upgrade and refurbishment of school to improve Condition and suitability. • Redheugh PS Gorebridge - Housing site not yet in progress, school anticipated to be fully developer funded to accommodate pupils from this development. • Lasswade PS refurbishment and extension Works to upgrade internal layout and provide additional core accommodation. 6 Report Implications (Resource, Digital and Risk) 6.1 Resource The Capital Plan continues to support investment across the Learning Estate further through the block allocations and remains under review to confirm affordability and deliverability. Through the current and future Local Development Plan, appropriate levels of developer contributions will be sought to support required additional infrastructure and facilities from new housing developments. 6.2 Digital The IT requirements of the proposed strategy and cost implications will be developed as part of the specifications for each school project. 6.3 Risk If the Council does not have a funding strategy for the delivery of the learning estate there is a risk that the Council will not have a place for every pupil at their catchment school. There is a risk that without an agreed strategy Council will be in a weaker position to bid for and secure Scottish Government funding. There is a risk that without having a Learning Estate Strategy in place the Council will not secure the Page 136 of 390
Page 137
11 appropriate level of S75 contributions required to deliver additional capacity arising from housing developments. There is a risk that the funding required to deliver the strategy will require a level of prudential borrowing that will only be affordable if other capital projects are deprioritised and/or further savings are secured in the revenue budget to provide the capacity in the revenue budget to meet the costs of additional prudential borrowing. There is a financial risk in that if the levels of appropriate funding are not provided to deliver the Learning Estate Strategy, then the Council may not meet its statutory obligations in terms of the availability of sufficient school places. There is a legal risk to these proposals – the terms of the School (Consultation) (Scotland) Act 2010 and other legislation can limit the Council’s ability to proceed with certain proposals regarding permanent changes to the Learning Estate. These risks can be mitigated by ensuring adherence to the legislation and its processes and by carrying out robust and extensive pre-consultation engagement with the communities in the directly and indirectly affected communities regarding the provision of education. 6.4 Ensuring Equalities (if required a separate IIA must be completed) Individual Integrated Impact Assessments will be undertaken in respect of all future recommendations in terms of the Learning Estate Strategy. 6.5 Additional Report Implications (See Appendix A) See Appendix A Appendices Appendix A – Additional Report Implications Appendix B – Background information/Links Page 137 of 390
Page 138
12 APPENDIX A – Report Implications A.1 Key Priorities within the Single Midlothian Plan • Individuals and communities have improved health and learning outcomes • No child or household living in poverty • Significant progress is made towards net zero carbon emissions by 2030 A.2 Key Drivers for Change Key drivers addressed in this report: Holistic Working Hub and Spoke X Modern X Sustainable Transformational Preventative Asset-based X Continuous Improvement X One size fits one None of the above A.3 Key Delivery Streams Key delivery streams addressed in this report: X One Council Working with you, for you X Preventative and Sustainable X Efficient and Modern Innovative and Ambitious None of the above A.4 Delivering Best Value The updated Learning Estate Strategy Review will almost certainly have significant financial implications and will therefore heavily influence the Council’s Capital Investment Plan and long term Revenue Financial Planning. It will also inform the next Local Development Plan and related supplementary guidance, with enabling developer contributions being of considerable importance. Continuing investment to ensure learning estate facilities are fit for purpose will reduce maintenance and life-cycle costs A.5 Involving Communities and Other Stakeholders This report presents the review of the Learning Estate Strategy 2017- 2047 and identifies a number of proposals which would be subject to informal and statutory consultation. A.6 Impact on Performance and Outcomes Page 138 of 390
Page 139
13 The aim of this paper supports the priority to reduce the inequalities in learning outcomes by improving the quality of learning and teaching, leading to raised levels of achievement and attainment, by providing every child with the opportunity to attend school in their local community. A.7 Adopting a Preventative Approach The aim of this report supports the priority to reduce inequalities in learning outcomes by improving the quality of learning and teaching, leading to raised levels of achievement and attainment, by providing every child with the opportunity to attend school in their local community A.8 Supporting Sustainable Development The proposed Learning Estate Strategy supports sustainable development by outlining the short to long term requirements for the learning estate. This report takes into account the need to deliver fit for purpose schools across Midlothian which are sustainable while anticipating and acknowledging the needs and views of stakeholders. Page 139 of 390
Page 140
14 APPENDIX B Background Papers/Resource Links (insert applicable papers/links) Building our Future: Scotland’s School Estate https://www2.gov.scot/Publications/2003/02/16251/17422 Building better schools: investing in Scotland’s future https://www.gov.scot/publications/building-better-schools-investing-scotlands- future/ Scotland’s Learning Estate Strategy: Connecting People, Places and Learning Appendix 1 Midlothian Learning Estate Strategy 2017-2047 Appendix 2 Learning Estate Strategy 2017-2047 Update Appendix 3 Core/suitability Appendix 4 ASN Learning Estate Strategy Report Page 140 of 390
Page 141
Appendix 2 Learning Estate Strategy 2017- 2047 Update Progress with Learning Estate 2017-2047 Strategy projects approved by Council Proposed Project 2022 Update Finance and Funding Gap Danderhall/Shawfair Build a three stream replacement Danderhall Primary School, as agreed by Council in February 2017, required for August 2020. School delivered April 2021 Budget - £17.1m Expenditure to date - £15m Dalkeith Build a new two stream primary school in Dalkeith with the capacity to extend to three-stream, required for August 2019. Revised proposal to extend Woodburn PS and extend and refurbish Kings Park PS. Woodburn PS extension - Anticipated completion August 2024. Kings Park PS – to be delivered by August 2025. Woodburn PS £13.25m budget £6.1m of Developer contributions gathered for Kings Park/Woodburn £11.9 m approved ‘in principle’. LEIP 3 bid submitted to Scottish Government to extend and refurbish Kings Park PS. Mayfield Build a new two-stream primary in Easthouses to be located on the old Newbattle High School site, required for August 2019. Easthouses PS has agreed design, budget and planning permission has been submitted, expected delivery August 2024. Budget in Capital Plan £21.474m, cost agreed approx. £22m. Developer Contributions of £6m. Page 141 of 390
Page 142
Gorebridge Identify and safeguard a potential site for a secondary school to serve the Gorebridge area. Initial feasibility has been conducted, further work required. Developer contributions of £30.8m allocated to Newbattle/Gorebridge Budget allocation required to establish project design and build team. Newtongrange Bring the capacity of Newtongrange Primary School up to two-stream, required for August 2021. Extension not required. Catchment review intending to alleviate capacity pressures. School still requires a full refurbishment and upgrade as Condition and Suitability rated C. £2.581m shown in capital plan approved ‘in principle’. Bonnyrigg 1. Expand Burnbrae Primary School to three- stream by building additional capacity at the school campus on Rosewell Road, as approved by Council on 29 August 2017, planned for August 2019. 2. Enhance core facilities, such as toilets and Complete. Some works relating to changing facilities carried out, £453k in Capital Plan Page 142 of 390
Page 143
changing facilities, at Lasswade High School to provide capacity for 1,600 pupils, required immediately. 3. Build a new primary school in Bonnyrigg on Hopefield Farm 2 housing development site (Hs12), required for 2022. 4. Build a three stream replacement Lasswade Primary School on a new site, required for 2023. moving Loanhead PS catchment to the new Beeslack will assist in alleviating capacity pressures Housing site not underway, fully developer funded school will be built. Land and roll projection feasibility assessment carried out 2021, 3-stream school now not required. Recommendation is a refurbishment and extension to core accommodation. Anticipated £17m of developer contributions. Within the Capital Plan £18.2m shown below the line under ‘pipeline projects’. Anticipated cost of circa £8m Rosewell Extend Rosewell Primary School from single stream to a two- stream primary school, required for 2022. LEIP 3 bid for a new 2 stream school submitted to Scottish Government. Site conditions problematic to undertake and deliver an extension. Overall Condition and Suitability rating of existing building will not be improved from a C rating. Estimated Costs of new build £22m Estimated cost of extension £13m Budget in Capital plan £7.647m Developer Contributions of £5.64m Page 143 of 390
Page 144
Bilston Extend Bilston Primary School to two-stream, required by 2023. Extension now required by 2026. £4.92m of developer contributions Penicuik 1. Extend and refurbish Sacred Heart Primary School, including early years’ expansion, required for 2018. 2. Extend Cuiken Primary School to two-stream, required for 2018. 3. Present a report to Council when a potential site has been identified for a secondary school along the A701. Works Complete Works complete LEIP Phase 1 project Beeslack HS replacement is currently being designed, anticipated completion 2026/27. Budget in Capital Plan £1.5m Estimated Cost £85-90m Developer Contributions - £20.5m LEIP Funding circa £19.7m A figure of £86.1m is shown below the line as a ‘pipeline project’ in Capital plan. Page 144 of 390
Page 145
4. Penicuik High School extension and adaptations, required for 2022. 5. Extend Strathesk Primary School, one class extension, required for 2022. LEIP 2 Project, delayed due to the synergies with the progress of the Beeslack HS replacement project. Penicuik HS will decant to the existing Beeslack building to allow works to begin. Not required as approx. 150 spaces in school Developer Contributions £3.5m LEIP Funding circa £19.4m Estimated cost unknown as scope not confirmed. £305k in Capital Plan in principle. 2022 Learning Estate Investment Plan Prioritisation Proposals 1. Priority Projects – LEIP Funded Schools Project Council Approval/LES 2017 Finance Risk Beeslack HS Replacement Budget in Capital Plan £1.5m Estimated Cost circa £85-90m Developer Contributions - £20.5m LEIP Funding £19.7m If school does not proceed as planned, then the existing Beeslack will breach and the Council will lose SG LEIP funding. Alternative accommodation will Page 145 of 390
Page 146
A figure of £86.1m is shown as a ‘pipeline project’ in capital plan have to be sought and funded. Penicuik HS project won’t be able to proceed. Lasswade HS would require to be extended and funded. Potential default costs. Mayfield Campus Budget in Capital Plan - £152k Estimated Cost £35-40m Developer Contributions - £6.2m LEIP Funding - £13.97m A figure of £35.8m is shown below the line as a ‘pipeline project’ School campus would lapse in to Condition D rating which would mean the building would be life expired and all the risks to users that entails. There would be further costs to the Council as the building deteriorated further. Penicuik HS Developer Contributions £3.5m LEIP Funding – circa £19.4m Estimated cost unknown as scope not confirmed. A figure of £38m is shown below the line as a ‘pipeline project’ in Capital plan School would lapse in Condition D rating which would mean the building would be life expired and all the risks to users that entails. There would be further costs to the Council as the building deteriorated further. 2. Growth – additional capacity required School Finance and Funding Gap Risk Kings Park PS £11.9 m in Capital Plan for refurb and extension. £6.1m in developer contributions combined with Woodburn If LEIP bid unsuccessful proceed with planned extension and refurbishment Page 146 of 390
Page 147
Rosewell PS – Breach 2024 site £7.64m in Capital Plan ‘approved in principle’ for an extension LEIP 3 bid submitted for a new school Due to site constraints, an extension will be extremely difficult to deliver and will not lift the school out of a C Condition rating and the building will deteriorate further without significant investment Roslin PS – Breach 2024, Extension required to accommodate growth from housing developments £2.45m in developer contributions. If extension works do not proceed school will breach and catchment pupils won’t be accommodated and the Council will not meet its statutory obligations. Woodburn PS – Breach 2024, Extension project in final stages of development, council approval sought by end of year £13.5m in Capital Plan. If extension works do not proceed the school will breach, catchment pupils won’t be accommodated and the Council will not meet its statutory obligations. Bilston PS – Breach 2026, Extension Required £4.9m in developer contributions. If extension works do not proceed school will breach, catchment pupils won’t be accommodated and the Council will not meet its statutory obligations. Mauricewood PS – Breach 2027, Extension required Statutory consultation required for new catchment which will include pupil product from the Auchendinny site. £9.9m in capital plan. £7.7m in developer contributions. If extension works do not proceed school will breach, catchment pupils won’t be accommodated and the Council will not meet its statutory obligations. Page 147 of 390
Page 148
New Auchendinny PS (pupils from this site will attend extended Mauricewood PS) Approx £3m in developer contributions There will not be sufficient pupil product to support the creation of a new school and associated revenue costs. 3. Planned Future Projects Project Finance and Funding Gap Risk HS12 PS – Developer funded school, no housing units completed to date Approved ‘in principle’, £17m in developer contributions. If the new school build works do not proceed schools in the area will breach, catchment pupils won’t be accommodated and the Council will not meet its statutory obligations. Gorebridge HS – Land and feasibility works to identify and safeguard potential site for High school. £30.8m in contributions attributed to Gorebridge/Newbattle Estimated cost unknown as scope not confirmed. A figure of £54m is shown below the line as a ‘pipeline project’ in capital plan Insufficient capacity across the Newbattle/Gorebridge communities A suitable site for a potential HS still to be identified based on current costs there would be an approx. £30-40m financial burden to the Council to deliver the school. Shawfair schools’ solution – land negotiations ongoing to £39m in developer contributions for Secondary and £29.8m for Primary. There are approx. 650 houses already built, secondary pupils currently attend Dalkeith HS which Page 148 of 390
Page 149
safeguard site for schools’ solutions. A figure of £122m is shown below the line as a ‘pipeline project’ in capital plan is due to breach in 2024. This is a PPP school meaning any capacity works required will be costly and may take longer to deliver. Due to no site being as yet agreed it is anticipated any school solution will not be complete until 2027/28 at best. There is no cap to house building despite there being no educational solution. Dalkeith HS – Breach 2024 PPP school, extension predicated on Shawfair progress. See above. Hawthornden PS Extension and ASN works – plan to develop dedicated ASN unit, and extension £500k in Capital Plan. £9.1m in developer contributions. There will be insufficient ASN capacity to meet demand, meaning that existing classrooms across the Learning estate will need to be used for ASN delivery placing further pressure on capacity. Newtongrange PS –The school requires a full upgrade and refurbishment to move from a Condition C rating. Non-compliant to Disability accessibility legislation. £2.5m in Capital plan. If there is no investment in the existing building, school would lapse to Condition D rating, which would mean the building would be life expired and all the risks to users that entails. There would be further costs to the Council as the building deteriorated further. Redeugh PS – New school required for pupil product from £19.7m in developer contributions. If the new school build is not delivered other catchment schools will breach, catchment pupils won’t Page 149 of 390
Page 150
large-scale development, no imminent start date be accommodated and the Council will not meet its statutory obligations. Lasswade PS refurbishment and extension No budget in capital plan If there is no investment in the existing building, school would lapse in Suitability D rating which would mean the building would be life expired and all the risks to users that entails. There would be further costs to the Council as the building deteriorated further. . Page 150 of 390
Page 151
Appendix 3 – Condition and Suitability of Schools School Condition Suitability Sufficiency Bilston A B 61% Bonnyrigg A A 89% Burnbrae A A 92% Cornbank B B 86% Cuiken A B 51% Danderhall A A 57% Gore Glen A B 63% Gorebridge A A 66% Hawthornden B B 65% Kings Park B C 95% Lasswade B C 91% Lawfield A A 73% Loanhead A A 87% Mauricewood B C 90% Mayfield C C 69% Moorfoot A A 99% Newtongrange C C 91% Paradykes A A 79% Rosewell C C 90% Roslin A B 91% Sacred Heart B B 70% St Andrew's A B 85% St David's PS B C 87% St Luke's C C 83% St Mary's A B 66% St Matthew's C C 72% Stobhill A A 82% Strathesk A A 69% Tynewater A A 88% Woodburn A B 85% Beeslack B C 84% Dalkeith A B 87% Lasswade B A 97% Newbattle A A 90% Penicuik C C 67% St David's A B 82% Page 151 of 390
Page 152
Page 152 of 390
Page 153
Appendix 2 Learning Estate Strategy 2017- 2047 Update Proposed Project 2022 Update Investment Danderhall/Shawfair Build a three stream replacement Danderhall Primary School, as agreed by Council in February 2017, required for August 2020. School delivered April 2021 Budget - £17.1m Expenditure to date - £16.7m Mayfield Area Build a new two-stream primary in Easthouses to be located on the old Newbattle High School site, required for August 2019. Easthouses PS has agreed design, budget and planning permission has been submitted, expected delivery August 2024. Budget in Capital Plan £21.474m, cost agreed approx. £22m. Developer Contributions of £6m. Bonnyrigg Area 1. Expand Burnbrae Primary School to three-stream by building additional capacity at the school campus on Rosewell Complete 2020 £11.06m costs combined with St Mary’s RCPS Page 153 of 390
Page 154
Road, as approved by Council on 29 August 2017, planned for August 2019. 2. Enhance core facilities, such as toilets and changing facilities, at Lasswade High School to provide capacity for 1,600 pupils, required immediately. 3. St Mary’s RC PS Some works relating to changing facilities carried out Complete 2020 £453k £11.06m costs combined with Burnbrae EY & ASN Penicuik Area 1. Extend and refurbish Sacred Heart Primary School, including early years’ expansion, required for 2018. Works Complete £4.1m Page 154 of 390
Page 155
2. Extend Cuiken Primary School to two-stream, required for 2018. 3. Present a report to Council when a potential site has been identified for a secondary school along the A701. Works complete LEIP Phase 1 project Beeslack HS replacement is currently being designed, anticipated completion 2026/27. £1.7m Budget in Capital Plan £1.5m Estimated Cost £85-90m Developer Contributions - £20.5m LEIP Funding circa £19.7m A figure of £86.1m is shown below the line as a ‘pipeline project’ in Capital plan. Page 155 of 390
Page 156
Page 156 of 390
Page 157
1 MIDLOTHIAN COUNCIL LEARNING ESTATE STRATEGY 2017- 2047 September 2017 Page 157 of 390
Page 158
2 Contents: 1. Foreward 1.1. Vision for Education 1.2 The rationale for the Learning Estate Strategy 2. Design of the Learning Estate Strategy 2.1. The methodology for calculation of house numbers 2.2. The methodology for roll projection calculations 2.3. Primary school capacities (overview of expansion required) 2.4. School size 2.5. Early Years 2.6. Curriculum 2.7. Outdoor Learning 2.8. Centres of Excellence 2.9. Inclusion 2.10. Digital Learning Strategy 2.11. Community Use 2.12. School Design 2.13 Sustainability 3. Learning Communities 3.1. Shawfair 3.2. Dalkeith 3.3. Gorebridge, Mayfield and Newtongrange 3.4. Bonnyrigg and Loanhead 3.5. Penicuik 3.6. Denominational 3.7. Special School Provision 4. Technical Information 5. Financial Impact 6. Priority Projects and phasing Appendix 1: The school estate requirements timeline Appendix 2: Midlothian school capacities and pupil census 2016 Appendix 3: Housing development in Midlothian by primary school catchment Appendix 4: Map of Midlothian primary school catchments Page 158 of 390
Page 159
3 1. Forward 1.1 Vision for Education Committed to the creation of a world-class education system, Midlothian has developed a learning estate strategy to meet the needs of all learners within Midlothian. The Midlothian Local Development Plan proposes significant housing development across the county, including the creation of a new town at Shawfair. Since 2013 Midlothian has been identified as one of the fastest growing local authorities so it is imperative that we address current and future capacity issues. Having in place a Learning Estate Strategy will also strengthen the Council’s position in seeking adequate Section 75 contributions from developers and place the Council in a stronger position to secure future “Schools for the Future” funding via The Scottish Futures Trust. Central to our ambition to create a world-class education system are the core principles of excellence and equity. But why is an aspiration to be word-class so important to a small local authority like us? In Midlothian, we believe that it is about the capacity of Midlothian as a whole to ensure that our next generation can compete in a growing global knowledge economy which will increasingly depend on whether our young people can meet a fast-growing demand for high-level skills and we believe, as McKinsey does, that this hinges on significant improvements in both the quality of schooling outcomes and a more equitable distribution in learning opportunities. This is why we strongly believe that the possibility of attaining excellence should be available to every one of our learners regardless of background, prior achievement or socio-economic group. We strongly believe that excellence is an equity issue and therefore we are committed to ensuring that every one of our children has the right to aim for excellence and to attain excellence in multiple ways. This is why Midlothian has adopted a holistic approach to help all of our learners move into a sustained positive destination and we are talking with the University of Edinburgh about our plans to grow our new Centre for Research and innovation in Learning and our aspiration to grow Centres of Excellence which will be based in each of our High Schools including the new Centre of Excellence for Digital planned for the new Newbattle High School due to open in March 2018. We know that the seeds of world-class are already here in Midlothian and we are committed to growing this even further. In Midlothian we promote a one-size fits one approach through our Visible Learning programme because we know that learners progress in different ways and we co-hosted, together with Osiris and the General Teaching Council for Scotland, the first ever Scottish Visible Learning Conference to share our practice with other local authorities in Scotland, across the UK and across the world. You can see that we base all of our education programmes on the very best international research and we know that collaborative working and sharing what we know works best is key and that is why we have built a strong programme to develop a growth mindset so that our learners know how to learn, what to do when they get stuck but most importantly Page 159 of 390
Page 160
4 understand that if they can’t do something, this really means that they can’t do something yet. This is important because we know that with this level of individual care and support every single one of our learners will not only achieve their full potential but will have the very best consistent educational experience which may even help them to exceed their potential – our children are our nation’s greatest gift and there is nothing more important than ensuring that each and every one of our children has the resilience, skills, creativity and compassion to help make our world a better place. Midlothian has a strong history of partnership working and we are proud that our schools are at the heart of their local community working closely with parents and partners. In Midlothian we know that schools alone cannot close the poverty related attainment gap and that is why we are proud of the strong links we have with parents and a wide range of partners including the third sector, all departments of the council, our community councils, community planning partners and faith groups – all working relentlessly to ensure that we really do make a difference to our children and our communities. We know that if we get it right in the early years, we can make a real difference. One of our nurseries, Mayfield Nursery, which is based in an area of multiple deprivation, was recently evaluated as excellent by Education Scotland and we are committed to sharing this best practice locally and nationally. We are committed to the delivery of the 1140 hours and our Family Learning approach is key; in 2016 we opened the new Woodburn Family Learning Centre and we will grow this approach across all of our targeted communities. We have also established the Primary 1 teachers network which is a network of teachers who are working together to close the literacy gap by the end of Primary 1, to ensure that as our learners progress through their education that learning experiences widen rather than narrow. This is of absolute importance because a gap between our most and least deprived which starts at 5% by the end of Primary 1 can easily grow to a gap of 14% by the end of P4, 22% by the end of P7 and a staggering 33% by the end of S3. So you can see why it is so important to close this gap really early on. We are also committed to more children staying on until the end of S6 by ensuring that our learning pathways are more engaging, blended with a mix of qualifications, work-experience, college placements and wider achievement awards including volunteering. This is beginning to make a big difference, we know this because we now track, together with Skills Development Scotland, our sustained destinations weekly. This year our initial positive destinations were 95.1% ranking Midlothian 5th place when compared with the 32 local authorities in Scotland, showing a 11.1% improvement over a five year period. This is our 2017 Learning Estate Strategy (LES) which provides information on progress made to date, the current position, challenges and priorities. The LES supports the school estate management planning process allowing the Council to identify the need for spending going forward and to prioritise accordingly and in a way that is open and objective. Page 160 of 390
Page 161
5 1.2 The rationale for the Learning Estate Strategy Midlothian is now one of the fastest growing local authorities in Scotland due to the Midlothian Local Development Plan which proposes significant housing development across the county, including the creation of a new town at Shawfair. Therefore it is imperative that we address current and future capacity issues. To fully implement our ambition to create a world-class education system through excellence and equity the following core principles are embedded into the learning estate strategy: Promoting excellence and equity by delivering a more equitable distribution in learning opportunities by ensuring that every one of our children has the right to aim for excellence and to attain excellence in multiple ways Interrupting the cycle of poverty by school hubs having a role at the heart of their community to help address the inequalities that reduce life chances; Getting it right for every Midlothian child by utilising the school estate to deliver early intervention strategies through, where possible, the co- location of services together with a family learning approach; Taking a community based approach to building schools which meet the needs of communities and enhance the lives of all those who live in those communities. In short, we aspire to create a learning estate that enhances communities and at its heart supports children and young people through their learning journey from early years, primary and secondary school, college or university to the world of employment, education or training equipped with the skills for life, work and learning both they and society will need to succeed in the growing global knowledge economy of the 21st century. In order to achieve this vision, the learning estate strategy sets out the sustainability, best value and financial challenges we face. Page 161 of 390
Page 162
6 2. Design of the Learning Estate Strategy 2.1 The methodology for calculation of house numbers The methodology used for the calculation of house numbers is based on the assumptions made in the Midlothian Local Development Plan (Proposed Plan) 2014 (MLDP) and Housing Land Audit 2016 (HLA). The HLA sets out the timeline for the proposed housing developments. Increases in the number of houses in developments set out in the MLDP which are significantly above the indicative site capacity, may be recommended for refusal through the planning consultation process if there is not sufficient education capacity to support the resulting projected increase in pupil numbers. Similarly, windfall sites typically total 150-180 houses per year, Midlothian Council has been flexible with previous windfall applications, however, after adoption of the Learning Estate Strategy (LES) controls will be put in place in order to a manage the risk of the impact of any additional housing on the capacity of education infrastructure. Future planning applications may be recommended for refusal through the consultation process if there is not sufficient school capacity to support the projected number of pupils which would arise from these additional unexpected developments. HLA is completed after year end, so figures in the HLA for 2017 may be different to actual houses built at some developments e.g. Shawfair. The total number of houses per development site remains the same, it is the phasing that is to be adjusted. These variations in phasing are corrected in the annual update of the HLA. 2.2 The methodology for roll projection calculations The methodology for roll projection calculations are based on the best information we have regarding the numbers of children resident in each school catchment area and the housing development, completed and proposed in Midlothian. The projection of pupil numbers from new housing includes all assumptions in the Local Development Plan (Proposed Plan) 2014 and the Housing Land Audit 2016. The housing development is then used to calculate an anticipated primary pupil product based on 4 years completions (i.e. 2017/18 projection is based on housing completions from 2013/14 to 2016/17). This primary pupil product is then cumulated and divided by 7 (the number of primary school stages) to give an estimate of P1 pupils. The primary pupil product used in Midlothian for new housing development has been 30.8 pupils per 100 units i.e. 0.308, this accounts for all pupils in the catchment, including denominational. However we are experiencing levels of growth in some areas higher than the 0.308 therefore a higher pupil product has been applied to the following areas: Page 162 of 390
Page 163
7 Bonnyrigg 0.47 Mayfield 0.38 Danderhall/Shawfair 0.47 Newton Farm/Cauldcoats 0.47 Developer contributions were previously calculated using a primary pupil product of 0.28 for non-denominational plus 0.028 for denominational. For the purpose of estimating developer contributions a pupil product of 0.47 for both non- denominational and denominational will be used from now on to estimate the number of primary pupils that will result from new housing development. Pupil numbers from new housing decline over time as settlements mature. The overall primary pupil product, which is the number of pupils per 100 houses, across all of Midlothian is 0.19. The pupil product varies across Midlothian and is higher in areas with significant social housing e.g. 0.24 in Mayfield and Gorebridge compared to 0.11 in Glencorse. The pupil roll projections assume the decline starts twenty years after houses have been completed. The projected number of P1 pupils from new housing is added to our baseline numbers of catchment pupils, which includes all 4 year olds across the authority in the year prior to them entering P1, this gives the total projected number of P1 pupils for each year. The numbers attending denominational schools are then projected based on the current uptake in each area where the percentage uptake is under 10%. Where the uptake is higher, a cap of 10% uptake from associated non-denominational primary schools has been applied. In the 2015 census around 10% of the population of Midlothian declared an affinity with the Roman Catholic Church so this approach sets denominational school capacity on the basis of an estimate of Midlothian’s Roman Catholic primary aged pupil population. Secondary stay on rates to S5 and S6 are applied equally across all schools. The stay on rate used for S5 is 90% of the previous year’s S4 and for S6 is 60% of the S4 of two years previous. The projection of secondary school numbers assume all primary pupils attending denominational schools progress to St David’s High School except Sacred Heart pupils where the location and trends show these pupils choose to attend a secondary school in Penicuik. Currently St David’s High School has an intake of 20 to 25 pupils per year from East Lothian. The impact of the projected major new housing developments in the western part of the East Lothian area is unknown at present. 2.3 Primary school capacities There are three bases used for the measurement of primary school capacity: Planning Capacity as defined in the Scottish Government Guidance on Determining Primary School Capacity published in October 2014. Planning Capacity is a physical, theoretical measure of the total number of pupils which could be accommodated in a Page 163 of 390
Page 164
8 school, based on the total number of teaching spaces, the size of those spaces and the class size maxima. Primary 1: 25 pupils Primary 2-3: 30 pupils Primary 4-7: 33 pupils Composite class: 25 pupils Two-stream primary school planning capacity Total Spaces 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 Class P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P3 P3 P4 P4 P5 P5 P6 P6 P7 P7 Class Size 25 25 25 30 30 30 30 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 33 459 It is important to note that in reality, Planning Capacity is rarely achieved due to the size of a school and how many classes it can offer and differences in class sizes for different age groups. Operational Capacity which is expressed as 90% of Planning Capacity provides a more realistic measure of the number of pupils a school can normally accommodate and the point at which additional capacity is required. A two stream primary school therefore has an operational capacity of 413 pupils. Design Capacity is a physical, practical measure of the total number of pupils which could be accommodated in a school, based on the total number of teaching spaces, the size of those spaces and the most likely class size for each space. Two-stream primary school capacity Total Spaces 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 15 Class P1 P1 P1 P2 P2 P3 P3 P4 P4 P5 P5 P6 P6 P7 P7 Class Size 20 20 20 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 420 Design Capacity is the basis used to specify school accommodation requirements in Midlothian and is used in the tables in this Learning Estate Strategy document. Operational Capacity has been used in the school estate requirements timeline to identify the points at which additional capacity is required (Appendix 1). 2.4 School size 2.4.1 Primary School Estate The number of primary pupils generated from established housing across the county attending Midlothian primary schools equates to 190 pupils for every 1,000 houses. The number is higher for new housing, which generates between 300 and 470 primary pupils for every 1,000 houses. In recent years we have experienced these higher numbers of pupils coming forward from new housing development in areas such as Bonnyrigg and Mayfield. The effect of this is more rapid pupil growth as a result of new housing than we had originally expected. However we anticipate that Page 164 of 390
Page 165
9 when the new developments mature the pupil numbers will eventually fall back to the established primary pupil product of 190 pupils for every 1,000 houses. This presents a challenge for planning the provision of school capacity. These factors indicate that a newly built development with 1,000 houses would initially generate 470 pupils, if 90% attend a non-denominational school, that would require a two-stream school, however to maintain full use of that school’s capacity would require a community with over 2,000 homes. Midlothian’s preferred model of primary school provision has been a two stream school, designed with capacity to accommodate 60 pupils at every stage of Primary 1 to Primary 7, a total of 420 primary pupils. However, in areas of significant growth officers propose the development of a three-stream model where the population requires this, for example in Bonnyrigg, Dalkeith and Shawfair. In additional the strategy cautions against the building of single stream primary schools moving forward. A single stream primary school has the capacity to accommodate 30 pupils at every stage of Primary 1 to Primary 7, a total of 210 primary pupils. It is becoming increasingly challenging to attract Head Teachers to single stream schools and the growing population in Midlothian would mean that a combination of two and three stream schools would be the preferred model moving forward. The 2015 census reports that around 10% of Midlothian’s population identified themselves as Roman Catholic, while the analysis of pupils attending Midlothian primary schools in 2016 shows that 898 pupils (12.4%) choose to attend a denominational school. Of these only 337 children are Roman Catholic, spread across the seven denominational primary schools in Midlothian. Using 10% to estimate the number of Roman Catholic children of primary school age equates to 47 denominational pupils for every 1,000 new houses and 23 denominational pupils for every 1,000 established houses. These smaller numbers mean that a newly built community would need to have about 9,000 houses to require a two-stream denominational school, and to maintain full use of that school’s capacity would require a community with over 18,000 houses. The numbers required to support a single stream denominational school would be a community with 4,500 newly built homes and the community would need to grow to 9,000 homes to maintain full use of that school’s capacity. A review of denominational school provision is required to establish the best strategy to continue to provide denominational education in Midlothian and further consultation work needs to be undertaken. Officers will progress this review and bring a report back to Council early in 2018. 2.4.2 Secondary School Estate The numbers of secondary pupils generated from established housing across the county attending Midlothian non denominational schools equates to 130 pupils for every 1,000 houses. The number is higher for new housing, which we estimate generates between 200 and 330 secondary pupils for every 1,000 houses. These numbers are based on experience to date and on the traditional delivery model for Page 165 of 390
Page 166
10 secondary curriculum, which may change as Curriculum for Excellence becomes more established. The 2013 Scottish School Estate Statistics show that only 1 out of 365 secondary schools has a roll over 1,800 pupils. Using these parameters indicates that for a Midlothian community to be able to sustain a secondary school with no less than 750 pupils, it should have at least 6,000 houses. It also indicates that a community with more than 13,000 houses is going to generate more pupils than would be seen as optimum for one secondary school. Views from Midlothian’s group of secondary school head teachers vary but there is universal agreement that, in the Midlothian context, schools below 750 pupils are undesirable due to the consequent restrictions in curricula choices, and overall sustainability. The group also felt there were benefits in larger schools being able to attract high calibre staff from a wider pool of candidates as a career pathway would lead to a bigger school with more responsibilities and opportunities. There was general agreement that an upper limit of about 1,800 pupils would achieve a reasonable balance. Therefore this strategy proposes a secondary school estate with schools of no fewer than 750 pupils moving forward and no larger than 1,800 pupils. 2.5 Early Years A detailed plan for the expansion of early learning and childcare from the current entitlement of 600 hours to 1,140 hours by 2020 is being developed. The expansion is being phased in from 2017/18 and will reach full capacity in 2020/21. The plan incorporates Council provisions, partner providers (private, third sector and voluntary nurseries) and childminders, and will offer affordability, accessibility, flexibility and quality to parents and carers. The Scottish Government has required that all local authorities submit initial, costed, plans that the government will then use to determine the level of funding it will provide. The expansion plan has therefore been developed without knowing the level of capital and revenue funding that Midlothian will receive beyond 2017/18. In due course the Scottish Government will provide details of the funding and the expansion plan will be reviewed and may require significant changes. In any case the expansion plan will be iterative and will change as the needs of people who will be parents of 2, 3 and 4 year old children in 2020 are gathered, feasibility studies are carried out and quotes received, recruitment and training of staff progresses, and important guidance on partner providers, childminders and funding follows the child are published by the government. The expansion plan is closely aligned with the Learning Estate Strategy to ensure that learning estate planning takes into account the increased early years provisions required, that the expansion plan takes up the opportunities for efficient use of resources presented by the works required to the school estate in the short term, and is sustainable in the long term. Page 166 of 390
Page 167
11 2.6 Curriculum The aim of Curriculum for Excellence is intended to help children and young people gain the knowledge, skills and attributes needed for life in the 21st century, including skills for learning, life and work. Its purpose is often summed up as the four capacities: Successful learners Confident individuals Responsible citizens Effective contributors. Curriculum for Excellence is designed to achieve a transformation in education in Scotland by providing a coherent, more flexible and enriched curriculum from 3 to 18. The term curriculum is understood to mean - everything that is planned for children and young people throughout their education, not just what happens in the classroom. Curriculum for Excellence includes four contexts for learning: Curriculum areas and subjects Interdisciplinary learning Ethos and life of the school Opportunities for personal achievement. The curriculum has two stages: the broad general education (from the early years to the end of S3) and the senior phase (S4 to S6). The broad general education has five levels (early, first, second, third and fourth). The senior phase is designed to build on the experiences and outcomes of the broad general education, and to allow young people to take qualifications and courses that suit their abilities and interests. There are eight curriculum areas: Expressive arts Health and wellbeing Languages (including English, Gaidhlig, Gaelic learners and modern languages) Mathematics Religious and moral education Sciences Social studies Technologies. Literacy, numeracy and health and wellbeing are recognised as being particularly important – these areas are seen as being the ‘responsibility of all’ staff. In addition there are seven broad principles that practitioners should take into consideration when planning children’s learning: Challenge and enjoyment Breadth Page 167 of 390
Page 168
12 Progression Depth Personalisation and choice Coherence Relevance. 2.7 Outdoor Learning Learning for Sustainability (LfS) and Outdoor Learning are becoming prominent integrated elements of the Curriculum for Excellence (CfE). For the service to continue its development and support the educational agenda, opportunities for a new home should be considered for relevant, fit for purpose and sustainable accommodation while Midlothian Council is undergoing rationalisation of their property portfolio. Suitable premises could in turn increase the uptake of outdoor learning and enhance the current provision delivered to education users and a broader approach could benefit the wider community. The Outdoor Learning service has been based in temporary premises at Penicuik High School since 2008. The Service is housed in an adapted area to the rear of the school which currently consists of five shipping containers and one open converted storage/garage area. There are currently no toilets or changing area for pupils but the Service has access to the toilets of Penicuik High School. In order to accommodate the Service a new base would need to include, or have suitable access to, a secure building for dry storage, secure covered areas for trailers, secure areas for minibuses, a wash down area for outdoor equipment, a drying room, toilets and changing area(s), an office area, a teaching area and toilet, changing and storage area for staff. 2.8 Centres of Excellence Research and development on the Centre of Excellence continues and a number of workstreams are planned to support the implementation of the centres of excellence model. Workstreams include: • Curriculum – exploring the enhancements to the curriculum that will emerge from collaboration with further education, higher education, industry and commerce. • Community Ownership – ensuring students, staff and wider community have a strong voice in the development of the Centre and its services. • Professional Learning – addressing the need for the up-skilling of teachers and other centre staff to be comfortable with an enhanced level of technology. • Digital Technology – identifying appropriate technology to support each curricular area, in particular to straddle the school, further and higher education and industry. • Support – ensuring that the support arrangements meet the needs of a Digital Centre of Excellence. • Partnership – developing strong partnerships across education sectors and with local, national and international technology companies. • Digital Participation – looking for innovative ways of ensuring that the Centre aspires to deliver best practice in digital inclusion, ensuring learners are equipped Page 168 of 390
Page 169
13 for learning in the digital age. • Enterprise – looking for ways that the centre can engage with the wider community, supporting local business and attracting funding streams to support its activities. • Digital Hub – establishing the Centre as a hub for the delivery of digital learning across Midlothian, including curriculum for excellence, lifelong learning and professional learning programmes. Partnership working with the University of Edinburgh: we are continuing to work closely with the University of Edinburgh on developing the concept of the centres of excellence and a draft heads of terms document is currently under development. Working together in this way will help us to develop a number of priorities which we share particularly in terms of a skills solution for Midlothian and potentially the wider South East of Scotland area. 2.9 Inclusion In line with Scottish Government’s continuing presumption of mainstream education, planning for inclusion must be at the forefront of new school design. Recommendations around all pupils being able to be educated within their own local community and not being transported out with will mean equipping our local communities with the environment and resources to get it right for every Midlothian child. In Midlothian, we are progressing the implementation of Nurture in both Primary and Secondary Schools. Careful consideration of placement within the building is key to getting it right for specifically designed nurture spaces. In addition to this we must plan for the increase in pupils with Additional Support Needs as the pupil population grows, in Scotland 1 in 3 pupils have an additional support need, the levels of pupils with significant complex needs and severe and profound needs will increase in turn and this will require Midlothian Council to evaluate the current specialist school provision (Saltersgate) for severe and profound, as well as our complex needs enhanced provisions. New secondary schools should be able to be self sufficient in supporting pupils with a range of complex needs, and planning of location and size of these spaces must be done in conjunction with specialist staff. Moving forward, we aspire to ensure that each learning community is equipped to support pupils with a range of complex needs in Primary and Secondary Schools, therefore communities that currently do not have complex needs provision need to have this planned into future School builds where identified. We also have a growing number of pupils that require alternative education provision, numerous factors contribute to this from social & Emotional to Mental Health. Therefore we should be planning strategies that allow these pupils to remain within Midlothian Council for their education, this will require settings where there can be a focus on life skills and skills for work, in additional to being able to deliver classroom based learning. Page 169 of 390
Page 170
14 2.10 Digital Learning Strategy Midlothian has a clear vision and strategy for Digital Learning which was approved by council in February 2017. As a result, Midlothian will take full advantage of the opportunities offered by technology to equip our children and young people with the knowledge and digital skills essential for learning, life and work in the 21st century. Midlothian’s Digital Learning strategy is central to the Council’s aim of delivering a world class education system. It is closely aligned with Scottish Government’s policy and advice on digital learning and it also articulates with key national and local priorities including: Scotland’s National Improvement Framework for Education (2016) The Scottish Attainment Challenge (2016) Midlothian’s Delivering Excellence programme Visible Learning Midlothian’s strategy covers 4 key aspects associated with learning in the digital age Curriculum, learning and teaching; Leadership and professional learning; Digital participation; and Infrastructure In developing our vision and strategy for learning in the digital age, Midlothian carried out an extensive consultation to establish the views of a wide range of stakeholders including education professionals and classroom practitioners, school leaders, parents, children and young people. We also sought the views of some of the leading voices in digital learning both nationally and internationally and reviewed the work of other local authorities in this field. We held a series of focus group sessions where we captured many different perspectives, and feedback from stakeholders has helped to shape our vision for digital learning. Digital technology is embedded in all aspects of modern life. Today, children, young people, and adults have access to technologies that are transforming how they connect, share, work and play in innovative and exciting new ways. From the rapid growth of the Internet, online services and social networks, to the development of a wide variety of mobile devices and applications, digital technologies offer tremendous opportunities for education. Innovative use of technology transforms learning and improves educational outcomes for young people. In our schools teachers and learners are making increased use of technology to engage in dynamic learning experiences involving exploration, discovery, collaboration and creation. Learners can access an ever- increasing range of digital tools, resources, and environments that support learning; they can collaborate with others learners far and wide, and learn in a personalised style that best suits their individual needs. Teachers and other practitioners can access a broad range of resources; network with fellow professionals; collaborate and share approaches to practice; and personalise teaching strategies and methodologies to match specific learner needs. Page 170 of 390
Page 171
15 Midlothian’s schools have already embraced a broad range of technologies which support learning and teaching. Learners and teachers are developing skills in using computer programs and software, iPads, digital cameras, robots and web-based applications. The development of Glow (Scotland’s online education intranet), Google apps and other web-based tools has created a new and exciting landscape for digital learning which promotes creativity and innovation in schools. Although the use of learning technology in Scottish schools has grown rapidly in recent years, the prevailing strategy has been for education authorities to determine and provide the technology required, and for teachers and learners to adapt classroom practice accordingly. We have, however, reached a point where learning technology is now so integral to the work of our schools that our teachers and learners require increased flexibility in determining the nature of that technology and how it is deployed. While decisions about the nature and deployment of technology are important, the key challenge lies in ensuring that Midlothian’s young people are equipped with the digital skills required for a rapidly changing world. In the years ahead there needs to be greater focus on the digital skills that young people require to support their learning and to ensure a successful transition to life and work beyond school. Our schools need to ensure that the curriculum is fit for purpose in the digital age. The development of digital learning should be systematically planned and evaluated, at both school and education authority levels. As a Council, we need to continue to encourage innovation and embrace new and emerging learning technologies. Technology is changing how young people learn and our classrooms and learning spaces need to more fully reflect this. Learning and teaching should make increased use of mobile technologies, including tablets, netbooks and smart phones, thus facilitating more flexible approaches to learning. Increasingly it is for teachers and learners to determine which solution is best for the learning activity and select the technology which is most appropriate. This means that schools need to have increased ownership over decisions relating to technology, requiring a move away from providing education establishments with a standardised suite of digital technology to a more flexible ‘one-size-fits-one’ approach. Technology can provide a catalyst and a mechanism for improving parental engagement and help to bridge the gap between home and school. Schools should actively encourage the use of social technology to communicate with parents and to share pupils’ work and achievements. Although this strategy focuses mainly on the work of schools, there is no doubt that digital technology also has a crucial part to play in family learning and adult education, and it is an increasingly important component of lifelong learning and employability. In the years ahead it is expected that schools will take increased ownership over decisions relating to technology. Schools should, however, continue to work in partnership with the authority with regard to the provision of digital technologies and to ensure adequate technical support. Midlothian should also seek to work collaboratively with neighbouring education authorities to share expertise and maximise the efficiency and effectiveness of service. Page 171 of 390
Page 172
16 Digital learning must be a key aspect of the professional learning of all staff. We need to support teachers in identifying the benefits of using technology to improve pupil learning and staff should be able to access high quality training in the leadership and application of digital learning. Schools should also adopt a ‘digital by default’ approach to the production of educational content and resources. It is also important to recognise that many children possess a powerful computer, tablet or smartphone of their own, but the use of personal devices is often prohibited within schools. This is a situation that needs to change in order to help our children fully develop the range of digital skills they require. Learners and teachers should be able to connect their own technology to school wifi networks to support learning and teaching (usually referred to as Bring-your-own-Technology). It is important, however, to ensure that all learners are able to access technologies that support learning, irrespective of socio economic background. Ensuring digital participation is central to Midlothian’s vision for digital learning. We must also ensure that teachers and learners benefit from a broadband infrastructure and school networking system capable of meeting the increasing demands placed upon them. This means having sufficient bandwidth to our establishments, robust and reliable wifi networks within school buildings, and easily accessible technical support. Digital literacy means having the knowledge and ability to use a range of digital technology tools and media for varied purposes. A digitally literate person can use technology to find and evaluate information, connect and collaborate with others, produce, share and present digital content, ideas and knowledge, and use the Internet and technology tools to achieve academic and personal goals. Digital literacy is much more than being able to use a computer. It’s about is about knowing when and why digital technologies are appropriate and helpful to the task at hand and when they are not. It’s about cultural and social awareness and understanding, and it’s also about being creative. The skills associated with digital literacy can be classified under 6 headings: Creativity Collaboration Communication Research and Finding Information Critical Thinking and Evaluation eSafety Feedback from employers and further/higher education indicates a skills gap when it comes to programming and coding. In the years ahead we need to promote software development, computing science and the skills associated with coding in primary and secondary schools. The promotion of digital skills for learning, life and work in our schools is at the heart of our vision and strategy for digital learning. These skills are elaborated more fully in Appendix 1 of the Digital Learning Strategy. Many learners arrive in school with more computing power on their person than the school is able to provide in the classroom. There is a strong educational argument Page 172 of 390
Page 173
17 for enabling pupils to use personal technology devices to support their learning by connecting to the school’s wifi network and online learning platforms such as Glow. This connectivity and integration personal devices already happens in many schools throughout the UK and is commonplace in further and higher education. The ICT in Education Excellence Group Report (2013) concluded that there are no significant technical barriers to a connecting learners’ own technology in Scottish schools, and that the barriers that do exist are social, organisational and managerial. The majority of pilot studies worldwide show that this has resulted in positive experiences for learners. Such a policy assumes that the majority of pupils will own their own internet-enabled device and that they are willing to bring it to school and use it for schoolwork. Of course, there will be pupils who for financial or personal reasons do not own a suitable device; and there may be others who own a device but are unwilling to use it in a school context. To address this issue, and to ensure digital participation for learners from less affluent communities, schools must have a pool of suitable devices for pupils to borrow. An increasing number of teachers are immersed in digital technology throughout their working and home lives. The technology they use is often much more powerful and their applications more integrated than the devices which are provided in schools. Teaching staff would benefit from being able to integrate their own technology into the classroom and use their devices as part of their teaching. This would also improve the learning experiences of pupils. There is, however, a need to ensure adequate separation and protection for data that must be secure, for example the administrative functions associated with SEEMIS. If learners and teachers are able to connect their own devices, over time the level of technology required by schools will be significantly reduced. This does not mean that Midlothian Council will stop purchasing and replenishing technology. Schools will continue to require a range of desktops, laptops, netbooks and tablets, the quantity of which depending on the volume and suitability of learners’ own devices. This policy also raises questions about the criterion for lending devices to pupils; about the responsibilities of pupils who borrow a school device, and also about the operational management of both pupil and teacher-owned devices in the classroom. The key technical issue that has to be addressed is the provision of universal wireless network access to the Internet for all schools. This has cost implications, implications for network support and for the broadband capability provided to the school as a whole. Although there are operational and technical issues relating to learners and teachers connecting their own technology, these are outweighed by the potential significant gains to learning and pupil achievement. The significantly reduced requirement for annual purchasing and replacement of devices will also reduce that financial burden on the Council and allow financial resources to be reallocated to infrastructure – in particular increasing bandwidth and improving wifi networks. Page 173 of 390
Page 174
18 This connectivity is therefore is central to our vision and our digital learning strategy. In some education authorities the technology provided for schools is standardised, ie teachers and learners are provided with an almost identical suite of digital hardware and resources. The rationale for this is to ensure that there is a baseline ICT provision for all pupils, regardless of which establishment they attend and standardisation also makes it easier to manage technical support for schools. Standardisation, however, places restrictions on creativity and innovation in schools. Many teachers, learners and school leaders believe that schools require more autonomy when it comes to making decisions about which devices, programmes and apps to use to support day-to-day classroom activities. Learners and teachers need to experiment with software and hardware and use technology in innovative ways. It is therefore increasingly important that schools are able to diversify and embrace emerging technology to explore new ways of learning and teaching. The most significant change in the technology landscape in schools in recent years has been the increased use of mobile technology including tablets and netbooks. This allows the technology to come to the learner rather than learner to technology. It facilitates a greater number of devices for the same overhead costs and offers new and more flexible ways of working in and around the classroom. In the near future there will be changes in the way that teachers use technology within day to day learning and teaching. Traditionally teachers share/cast content from a laptop or desktop computer to a large single display (eg a whiteboard) in their classrooms. Technology is now available that allows the teacher to share/cast content to multiple pupil devices, with interactivity taking place on the device instead of solely on the class whiteboard. Learners can also share content with other devices including those belonging to their classmates. In the years ahead this is likely to be an integral feature of digital learning, particularly with the increase in the deployment of mobile technology in schools. The Scottish Government in partnership with Education Scotland and Midlothian Council provides connectivity to the Glow learning environment for all school-aged learners and teachers. Glow is not the only learning platform, but it is free to schools, offers unlimited storage and contains a wide range of digital tools and resources for teachers and learners to share content and collaborate beyond the walls of their own establishment. Teachers need to adopt a ‘digital by default’ approach to the creation and use of learning resources. This requires a change in thinking so that digital becomes the default format for sharing learning activities and resources with learners. The availability of digital versions helps many young people access the curriculum more effectively, for example learners with additional support needs and those unable to attend school. Where resources are being digitized locally, it is essential that the work is shared and not repeated across schools. Beyond Glow there are many Internet based resources and services that support learning and teaching, for example Google Classroom, Edmodo and Class Dojo. The requirement of schools to carry out privacy impact assessments and a risk assessment on data security and protection, however, makes access to such resources challenging. Although the Headteacher retains the overall responsibility for Page 174 of 390
Page 175
19 data protection, the Council should support schools in carrying out the necessary processes and documentation to access the most popular internet services. Content filtering is essential in any school environment but it must be fit for purpose. Too rigid and it can stifle creativity and reduce access to content essential for learning. Too loose and it risks allowing inappropriate content. Midlothian teachers have always made decisions about content filtering in conjunction with the school and with advice from the Council’s Learning Technology Service. Introducing greater flexibility for schools to adjust filters is an important step in ensuring that decisions relating to online content are supervised primarily by curriculum specialists. Schools should continue to deliver e-Safety education and ensure that young people know how to stay safe online. The use of single sign-on where possible, and improvements to password protocols enhances online security and delivers a more satisfactory user experience. 2.11 Community Use We aspire to create a learning estate where arrangement for public access to and use of properties owned by the Council are developed as practical resources for the diversity of community needs and aspirations, through a variety of creative management, ownership and delivery models suitable to each setting. The core principles identified are: Equitable access; Affordability; In the ‘Right’ location; Multiple use ( no domination by a single user); Barrier free (physical and attitudinal); High Quality ( including adequate storage and modern ICT); Public spaces without “gatekeepers”; Designed jointly with users and wider communities of interest and place; Where appropriate managed by users as part of community empowerment; For Lifelong learning and employability a combination of front facing, back office and learning delivery space A guidance document has been developed in order to inform the decision and design process when considering accessible venues within the context of Lifelong Learning & Employability and Community Capacity Building strategies. 2.12 School Design In session 2016/17 primary pupils participated in the Inspiring Learning Spaces project and some pupils presented the results of their work at the School Design conference which was held with Professor Stephen Heppell in Midlothian. This was a joint conference for staff from Midlothian and Edinburgh. This project and the conference was partly funded by Architecture Design Scotland. In addition pupil voice has been central to the design of our new schools and evidence of this approach can be found in the new Bilston Primary school, Gore Glen Primary School, Roslin Primary School and the new Paradykes. As well as designing their own classroom spaces pupils have also been directly involved in the design of the outdoor play areas. Page 175 of 390
Page 176
20 In order to ensure that we continually improve our innovative approach to school design where the pupil voice is at the heart of it, we are in the process of developing a new design brief which will capture the very best of what works in Midlothian together with learning from international research and best practice. 2.13 Sustainability This strategy would see the addition of new schools and classrooms across Midlothian however it would create the additional accommodation at local schools so that children can access their catchment school. Accordingly it should ensure that travel to school patterns are minimised. Whilst the proposals in this strategy paper will see the creation of new buildings this would be to meet the objective of providing fit for purpose accommodation which meets present and future demand. Any new building would be designed to minimise the impact on carbon emissions and energy consumption. 3. Learning Communities This section sets out the specific details by learning community and the estate that will meet the needs of the children and young people as we continue to enable them all to do their very best while enhancing and improving the lives of all the communities of Midlothian. The following information is presented on the basis of six learning communities: Shawfair, Dalkeith, Bonnyrigg, Newbattle, Penicuik and Denominational. 3.1 Shawfair including Danderhall Catchment 2016 Housing Stock New Housing Projected Housing Stock Danderhall 1,397 490 1,887 Shawfair 13 3,481 3,494 Cauldcoats 550 550 Newton Farm 700 700 1,410 5,221 6,631 We estimate that house building in Danderhall and the wider Shawfair area will increase pupil numbers to over 700 pre-school and 2,450 primary aged pupils This will require a larger primary school at Danderhall as well as a family learning centre, primary and secondary school at the heart of Shawfair and three additional primary schools across the wider Shawfair area. In February 2017 Council agreed to replace Danderhall Primary School with a new three-stream replacement school on the current school site by August 2020. Whether this replacement school will incorporate a library and leisure facilities is subject to the location of the secondary school in Shawfair. Discussions with Network Rail have progressed regarding the purchase of the Shawfair town centre site for a primary and secondary school campus. A Page 176 of 390
Page 177
21 consultation over the schools’ location may be required before the final Council decision. Shawfair Learning Community 2046/47 Projected Roll Current Capacity Planned Capacity Year Required Plan for providing additional school capacity Shawfair HS 1,799 1,800 2026 New secondary school required at Shawfair Total Secondary 1,799 1,800 Danderhall PS 2,461 305 630 2020 Replacement 3-stream Danderhall PS providing additional 11 classes Shawfair Town Centre PS 630 2024 3 stream (22 class) school required in town centre Shawfair Newton Village PS 630 2029 3 stream (22 class) school required at Newton Village Cauldcoats 305 2034 Additional primary school required at Cauldcoats Newton Farm 355 2038 Additional primary school required at Newton Farm Total Primary 2,461 305 2,550 The short term requirement to 2023 is to build a three stream replacement Danderhall Primary School, part Council funded, planned for August 2020. 3.2 Dalkeith Catchment 2016 Housing Stock New Housing Projected Housing Stock Kings Park 3,246 330 3,576 Tynewater 921 120 1,041 Woodburn 3,113 448 3,561 7,280 898 8,178 We estimate that house building in Dalkeith will increase pupil numbers to over 500 pre-school and 1,900 primary aged pupils. Projections show three streams of additional capacity are needed for the Dalkeith area by 2019. The requirement for 1,900 primary school places will require two three-stream schools, one two stream school and one denominational school. Some additional capacity can be provided by way of extensions to King’s Park and St David’s Primary Schools, however most of the additional school capacity will require the creation of a third non denominational primary school to serve Dalkeith, for which a suitable site needs to be identified. Page 177 of 390
Page 178
22 Dalkeith Learning Community 2046/47 Roll Current Capacity Planned Capacity Year Required Plan for providing additional school capacity Dalkeith HS 1,440 1,450 1,450 2026 400 pupil extension required to Dalkeith HS St David's RC HS 674 892 892 Total Secondary 2,114 1,942 2,342 King's Park PS 577 510 630 2023 Extend King's Park to 3- stream Woodburn PS 581 630 630 Dalkeith PS 390 420 2019 New 2 stream (15 class) school required in Dalkeith St David's RC PS 186 175 175 2028 Expand St David’s PS Tynewater PS 184 210 210 Total Primary 1,917 1,525 2,065 The short term requirements to 2023 is to identify a site for a new two stream primary school in Dalkeith with the capacity to extend to three stream, part developer contribution funded, required for August 2019 and to undertake statutory consultation on the review of school catchments. 3.3 Gorebridge, Mayfield and Newtongrange Catchment 2016 Housing Stock New Housing Projected Housing Stock Mayfield 1,638 722 2,360 Lawfield 2,194 128 2,322 Newtongrange 2,353 173 2,526 Gorebridge 1,412 402 1,814 Gore Glen 1,230 513 1,743 Stobhill 757 30 787 Redheugh 1,300 1,300 Moorfoot 391 39 430 9,975 3,307 13,282 Gore Glen Primary School opened in 2016 and has been built to accommodate the initial growth in primary pupil numbers from houses recently completed in Gorebridge and those due to be constructed in the short-term. The development of the new settlement at Redheugh is planned to include a new primary school. We estimate that house building in Mayfield will increase pupil numbers to 400 pre- school and 1,400 primary aged pupils. We assess that the requirement for school places can be best met by three two-stream schools and one denominational school, which requires the provision of an additional primary school in the area. It had been planned that the housing developments in Mayfield and Newtongrange would deliver a new primary school in South Mayfield, however development on the major Mayfield site has not commenced and shows no sign of doing so. Meantime smaller housing developments have been progressed and social housing developments have been completed with consequent impact on pupil numbers. The current Newbattle High Page 178 of 390
Page 179
23 School site has been identified as the best option for the location of an additional primary school for the Mayfield area which projections show is needed by 2019. With respect to secondary pupil numbers, this size of community would normally generate more secondary pupils than would be optimally served by one school. However a significant proportion of the pupils in Newbattle High School’s catchment area do not attend Newbattle but exercise their entitlement to parental choice and travel instead to Dalkeith High School (8%) or Lasswade High School (8%). In addition, the proportion of pupils resident in Newbattle High School’s catchment area who opt to attend St David’s High School is significantly greater than that from other school areas. The combined effect of these two factors is to depress the pupil roll at Newbattle High School by approximately 20%. The replacement Newbattle High School building which will be completed during 2018 is designed with a capacity for 1,200 pupils and the potential to be extended to accommodate 1,500 pupils. The newly built school may prove to be sufficiently attractive to parents to result in a greater proportion of families choosing to send their children to the school built to serve their community, but it will take some time for this to become evident. There is no immediate requirement to make a decision in respect of providing additional secondary capacity for the Gorebridge, Mayfield and Newtongrange areas. However, to ensure the Council is not limited in its future options, it has decided that a potential site should be identified and safeguarded for a secondary school to serve the Gorebridge area. Newbattle Learning Community 2046/47 Roll Current Capacity Planned Capacity Year Required Plan for providing additional school capacity Newbattle HS 2,575 1,200 1,200 2024 Additional capacity / new secondary school required in Gorebridge Total Secondary 2,575 Mayfield PS 413 355 420 2027 Extend Mayfield to 2 stream (15 classes) Mayfield NS 160 Expand Mayfield Nursery School Lawfield PS 420 355 420 2025 Extend Lawfield to 2 stream (15 classes) Easthouses PS 402 420 2019 New 2 stream (15 class) school required in Mayfield/Easthouses St Luke's RC 138 210 210 Newtongrange PS 409 392 420 2021 Extend/adapt Newtongrange to accommodate an additional 2 classes Gorebridge PS 404 420 420 Gore Glen PS 379 420 420 Stobhill PS 200 210 210 Page 179 of 390
Page 180
24 Redheugh 412 420 2023/24 New primary school required at Redheugh Moorfoot PS 74 100 100 St Andrew's RC 184 175 210 2026 Extend St Andrew's to single stream capacity (8 classes) Total Primary 3,434 2,637 3,670 The short term requirements to 2023 are: Build a new two stream primary in Easthouses to be located on the old Newbattle High School site, part developer contribution funded, required for August 2019 and undertake statutory consultation on the review of school catchments. Review the capacity of Newtongrange Primary School and identify requirements to bring the capacity up to two stream, required for August 2021, developer contribution funded. 3.4 Bonnyrigg and Loanhead Catchment 2016 Housing Stock New Housing Projected Housing Stock Lasswade 2,160 87 2,247 Bonnyrigg 1,481 670 2,151 Burnbrae 1,586 256 1,842 Hopefield Farm 2 750 750 Hawthornden 2,110 42 2,152 Rosewell 815 801 1,616 Loanhead 1,162 223 1,385 Paradykes 1,503 353 1,856 10,817 3,182 13,999 We forecast in the longer term the Bonnyrigg area will have over 700 pre-school, 2,500 primary and 2,000 secondary pupils. The plan to provide additional primary school capacity for the area in the short-term is to build a joint campus on the former Hopefield Primary School site on Rosewell Road in Bonnyrigg. This new school building, planned for August 2019, will provide a replacement building for St Mary’s Roman Catholic Primary School and will provide space for Burnbrae Primary School to expand to three-stream. An agreed strategy for the provision of primary school places for the wider Bonnyrigg area is required to allow S75 negotiations to progress in the context of the Local Development Plan, which specifies an extension to Lasswade Primary School. A feasibility study was undertaken on an extension to or replacement of Lasswade Primary School and has concluded that it is not feasible to provide a larger primary school on its current site. The solution is to replace Lasswade with a three-stream primary school on an alternative site and extend Lasswade’s catchment area to incorporate part of Bonnyrigg’s catchment. This requires agreement on the acquisition of a suitable site for the school. Page 180 of 390
Page 181
25 At the other side of the Bonnyrigg area the Hopefield Farm 2 housing development is planned to include a new primary school. Loanhead has two non-denominational primary schools and one denominational school which shares a campus with Loanhead Primary School. The replacement Paradykes Primary School which opened in 2017 has been built as part of a new hub incorporating a partnership nursery, library and leisure facilities. Lasswade High School is a modern, recently built school which opened in 2013. This school is currently at its capacity of 1,480 pupils and occupies a site which could accommodate up to a maximum of 2,000 pupils. The planned house building in this area will result in an estimated roll of 2,740 secondary aged pupils by 2046, exceeding the maximum site capacity and exceeding Midlothian’s optimal maximum size of 1,800 pupils for a secondary school. As a result the catchment area of Lasswade High School needs to be reduced. This can be achieved by assigning the Loanhead settlement, and potentially Rosewell, to another secondary school, such as Beeslack High School. The current road links between Rosewell and the A701 corridor are not suitable for large volumes of traffic and the option to cycle or walk is not ideal either, so consideration of Rosewell being associated with a secondary school on the A701 corridor is not being taken forward at this point. This may be revisited in the future if transport links improve and the number of pupils attending Lasswade High School is forecast to exceed the capacity of the school site. Lasswade Learning Community 2046/47 Roll Current Capacity Planned Capacity Year Required Plan for providing additional school capacity Lasswade HS 2,741 1,480 1,800 2017/ 2028 Extend Lasswade to 1,800 and rezone Loanhead area to relocated Beeslack HS Total Secondary 2,741 Lasswade PS 608 355 630 2023 Replace Lasswade with 3- stream school on an alternative site & extend catchment Bonnyrigg PS 413 420 420 Rezone some catchment to Lasswade PS Burnbrae PS 608 420 630 2019 Additional capacity at Rosewell Road campus to extend Burnbrae to 3 stream Hawthornden PS 413 380 420 2025 Require additional P1 class space to bring Hawthornden up to 2 stream (15 classes) Mount Esk NS Hs12 School 360 420 2022 New school required St Mary's RC 206 210 210 2029 Replacement St Mary's planned for August 2019 Rosewell PS 330 175 420 2022 Extend Rosewell to 15 classes (2 stream) St Matthew's RC 37 75 75 Page 181 of 390
Page 182
26 Loanhead PS 175 175 175 Paradykes PS 358 420 420 New 2-stream (15 class) primary school opened Aug 2017 St Margaret's RC 67 100 100 Total Primary 3,576 2,730 3,920 The short term requirements to 2023 are: Expand Burnbrae Primary School to three-stream by building additional capacity at the school campus on Rosewell Road, as approved by Council on 29 August 2017, part Council funded, planned for August 2019. Enhance core facilities, such as toilets and changing facilities, at Lasswade High School to provide capacity for 1,600 pupils, required immediately, developer contribution funded. Build a new primary school in Bonnyrigg on Hopefield Farm 2 housing development (Hs12), required for 2022, developer contribution funded. Secure a site for a new three stream school for Lasswade Primary School and move to statutory consultation on relocation and catchment review when the new site is secured, required for 2023, part developer contribution funded. Extend Rosewell Primary School from single stream to a two stream primary school, required for 2022, developer contribution funded. 3.5 Penicuik Catchment 2016 Housing Stock New Housing Projected Housing Stock Bilston 958 845 1,803 Roslin 858 541 1,399 Glencorse 499 362 861 Mauricewood 1,060 583 1,643 Cuiken 1,629 504 2,133 Cornbank St James 2,052 31 2,083 Strathesk 2,286 32 2,318 9,342 2,898 12,240 We forecast the Penicuik area, in the longer term, will have 680 pre-school, 2,380 primary and 2,000 secondary pupils. The plan to provide additional primary school capacity for the area in the short-term is to extend Bilston, Cuiken and Strathesk Primary Schools to two-stream and to expand Sacred Heart Primary School to single stream. The plan to provide additional primary capacity for Glencorse is to build a replacement single stream school in Auchendinny which will require an input of capital from the Council for the cost of replacing existing capacity. The replacement school will be built with the flexibility to be extended, providing for possible future developments in the area such as the Glencorse Barracks. Page 182 of 390
Page 183
27 The proposal to relieve the pressure on capacity at Lasswade High school is to reassign the Loanhead settlement to another secondary school on the A701 Corridor. Taking these pupils into account, we project there will be 2,475 secondary aged pupils residing in Penicuik and the A701 Corridor. Pre-consultation on secondary school provision for the area was undertaken in September 2016. A report on World-Class Secondary School Provision for Penicuik & A701 Corridor was submitted to Council in December 2016. The proposal is to build a replacement Beeslack High School on a new site in the Midlothian West Ward, to serve Loanhead, Paradykes, Bilston, Roslin and Glencorse, and to extend and refurbish Penicuik High School, to serve Mauricewood, Cuiken Cornbank and Strathesk.. There are ongoing discussions with Edinburgh University on securing a suitable site for a secondary school on the A701 corridor. Once a suitable site is identified we will move on to developing a funding proposal, which will require an input of capital from the Council for the cost of replacing existing capacity at Beeslack High School and upgrading existing capacity at Penicuik High School. Penicuik Learning Community 2046/47 Roll Current Capacity Planned Capacity Year Required Plan for providing additional school capacity Beeslack HS 1,054 860 1,200 2022 Replace with new secondary school on A701 - rezone Loanhead area to new school and Mauricewood to Penicuik HS Penicuik HS 967 945 1,300 2022 Penicuik HS requires adaptations & extension to accommodate Mauricewood Total Secondary 2,021 1,805 2,500 Bilston PS 387 210 420 2023 Extend Bilston to 2 stream (15 classes) Roslin PS 282 305 305 Replacement Roslin opened (11 classes) Aug 2017 Glencorse PS 161 100 210 2023 Replace with new school at Auchendinny and relocate Glencorse Mauricewood PS 379 420 420 Cuiken PS 357 255 420 2018 Extend Cuiken to 2 stream - additional 6 classes required Cornbank PS 276 330 330 Strathesk PS 396 380 420 2022 Extend to 2 stream – 1 additional class required Sacred Heart RC 145 125 210 2018 Extend to single stream - additional 2 classes Total Primary 2,383 2,125 2,735 Short term requirements to 2023 Extend and refurbish Sacred Heart Primary School, including early years’ expansion, initial cost estimate £3 million, part developer contribution funded. Extend Cuiken Primary School to two stream, relocate ASN provision and expand early years’ provision, initial cost estimate £1.8 million, developer contribution funded. Page 183 of 390
Page 184
28 Present a further report to Council when a potential site has been identified for a secondary school along the A701. The cost of building the new school is part developer contribution funded with the aim to also secure funding in the next round of “Schools for the Future” funding via SFT. A catchment review will be required to rezone the Loanhead settlement to the A701 school and Mauricewood to Penicuik High School. Penicuik High School extension and adaptations required by 2022 to coincide with A701 school catchment review and accommodate pupils from Mauricewood area, part developer contribution funded. Extend Strathesk Primary School, one class extension, required for 2022, developer contribution funded. Extend Bilston Primary School to two stream, required by 2023, developer contribution funded. New primary school at Auchendinny to replace Glencorse Primary School, required by 2023, part developer contribution funded. 3.6 Denominational Midlothian currently has 7 denominational primary schools. The 2011 census reports that 9.8% of Midlothian’s population identified themselves as Roman Catholic while the analysis of pupils attending Midlothian primary schools in 2016 shows that 12.35% choose to go to a denominational school. It is notable that the school catchments where the proportion of pupils attending denominational primary schools is considerably in excess of 10% are Woodburn, Mayfield, Gore Glen and Rosewell. So in these areas the denominational schools are providing a significant amount of capacity for non-denominational pupils. Of the 898 pupils attending our denominational primary schools, only 337 of those are Roman Catholic, which is 4.6% of our primary pupil population. School Capacity Roll Occupancy Roman Catholic Percentage of roll RC Sacred Heart 125 119 95% 53 45% St Andrew's 175 159 91% 54 34% St David's 175 200 114% 69 35% St Luke's 210 184 88% 53 29% St Margaret’s 100 63 63% 17 27% St Mary's 210 142 68% 74 52% St Matthew's 75 31 41% 17 55% Total 1,070 898 84% 337 38% The long term pupil roll projections for denominational schools have been prepared on the basis of the current proportion choosing denominational schools capped at 10% where the current uptake is greater. Page 184 of 390
Page 185
29 Denominational Schools (also included in the preceding geographical learning community tables) 2046/47 Roll Current Capacity Planned Capacity Year Required Plan for providing additional school capacity St David's RC HS 674 892 892 Total Secondary 674 892 892 St David's RC PS 186 175 175 2028 Expand St David’s PS St Luke's RC 138 210 210 St Andrew's RC 184 175 210 2026 Extend St Andrew's to single stream capacity (8 classes) St Mary's RC 206 210 210 2029 Replacement St Mary's planned for August 2019 St Matthew's RC 37 75 75 St Margaret's RC 67 100 100 Sacred Heart RC 145 125 210 2018 Extend to single stream - additional 2 classes Total Primary 963 1,070 1,190 The requirement to consult on the development of a strategy for denominational school provision across Midlothian was agreed by Council in December 2015. Some progress has been made on the review of denominational school provision and further consultation work needs to be undertaken. Officers will progress the review of denominational school provision across Midlothian and bring a report back to Council early in 2018 3.7 Special School Provision - Saltersgate School Based on the current rate of pupils requiring specialist support at Saltersgate we estimate that the increase in population will require a doubling of the number of places available. This is in addition to the four existing primary provisions and the enhanced nurture bases in secondary schools. 4. Technical Information Further information regarding the phasing and technical information can be found in the planning spreadsheet 2017-2047 in appendix 1. 5. Financial Impact Following the seminar and presentation of the Learning Estate Strategy in September 2017, Officers will undertake further work on the financial implications of the short term strategy so that these can be considered as part of the Council’s Capital Strategy and General Service Capital Plan report which is expected to be presented to Council in November 2017. Page 185 of 390
Page 186
30 6. Priority Projects and Phasing Danderhall/Shawfair 1. Build a three stream replacement Danderhall Primary School, as agreed by Council in February 2017, required for August 2020. Dalkeith 2. Build a new two stream primary school in Dalkeith with the capacity to extend to three-stream, required for August 2019. Mayfield 3. Build a new two-stream primary in Easthouses to be located on the old Newbattle High School site, required for August 2019. . Gorebridge 4. Identify and safeguard a potential site for a secondary school to serve the Gorebridge area. Newtongrange 5. Bring the capacity of Newtongrange Primary School up to two-stream, required for August 2021. Bonnyrigg 6. Expand Burnbrae Primary School to three-stream by building additional capacity at the school campus on Rosewell Road, as approved by Council on 29 August 2017, planned for August 2019. 7. Enhance core facilities, such as toilets and changing facilities, at Lasswade High School to provide capacity for 1,600 pupils, required immediately. 8. Build a new primary school in Bonnyrigg on Hopefield Farm 2 housing development site (Hs12), required for 2022. 9. Build a three stream replacement Lasswade Primary School on a new site, required for 2023. Rosewell 10. Extend Rosewell Primary School from single stream to a two-stream primary school, required for 2022. Bilston 11. Extend Bilston Primary School to two-stream, required by 2023. Penicuik 12. Extend and refurbish Sacred Heart Primary School, including early years’ expansion, required for 2018. 13. Extend Cuiken Primary School to two-stream, required for 2018. 14. Present a report to Council when a potential site has been identified for a secondary school along the A701. 15. Penicuik High School extension and adaptations, required for 2022. 16. Extend Strathesk Primary School, one class extension, required for 2022. Page 186 of 390
Page 187
31 Glencorse 17. New primary school at Auchendinny to replace Glencorse Primary School, required by 2023. Denominational 18. Progress the review of denominational school provision across Midlothian and bring a report back to Council early in 2018. Page 187 of 390
Page 188
32 Appendix 1 The School Estate Requirements Timeline [Please refer to A1 Overview] Page 188 of 390
Page 189
33 Appendix 2 Midlothian School Capacities & Pupil Census 2016 Primary School Name P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 Total Roll Planning Capacity Occupancy Bilston 15 13 9 9 10 5 -- 61 242 25% Bonnyrigg 57 60 63 57 63 66 65 431 459 94% Burnbrae 66 58 58 54 45 35 32 348 459 76% Cornbank 33 36 23 33 46 40 27 238 342 70% Cuiken 38 30 27 38 31 26 38 228 267 85% Danderhall 34 39 40 39 26 40 35 253 317 80% Glencorse 3 5 4 2 6 5 -- 25 100 25% Gore Glen 20 5 9 5 5 5 1 50 459 11% Gorebridge 39 56 52 35 40 40 51 313 459 68% Hawthornden 49 52 35 45 53 49 61 344 434 79% Kings Park 70 73 72 60 62 61 79 477 530 90% Lasswade 44 57 49 56 50 60 63 379 367 103% Lawfield 56 55 51 26 42 41 25 296 367 81% Loanhead 26 23 28 26 28 31 31 193 217 89% Mauricewood 51 37 53 57 57 55 41 351 484 73% Mayfield 43 49 46 32 45 25 24 264 367 72% Moorfoot 14 14 10 14 16 15 8 91 100 91% Newtongrange 53 52 55 56 43 48 42 349 414 84% Paradykes 39 41 30 47 29 46 28 260 342 76% Rosewell 16 21 24 12 19 16 10 118 203 58% Roslin 23 25 25 23 22 32 24 174 317 55% Sacred Heart 18 23 19 17 13 18 11 119 125 95% St Andrew's 26 19 25 25 22 18 24 159 199 80% St David's 28 30 30 29 29 27 27 200 206 97% St Luke's 34 21 25 22 35 24 23 184 242 76% St Margaret's 12 9 12 5 10 7 8 63 100 63% St Mary's 14 22 22 15 26 24 19 142 263 54% St Matthew's 4 7 6 5 1 6 2 31 75 41% Stobhill 30 30 30 26 32 21 25 194 242 80% Strathesk 51 53 41 49 51 48 39 332 434 76% Tynewater 27 28 20 23 27 22 22 169 242 70% Woodburn 71 70 68 64 56 55 51 435 676 64% Total 1,104 1,113 1,061 1,006 1,040 1,011 936 7,271 13,438 54% Secondary Student Stage Breakdown School Name S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 Total Roll Capacity Occupancy Beeslack 106 120 107 125 120 77 655 860 76% Dalkeith 160 110 145 154 123 83 775 1,050 74% Lasswade 300 297 287 256 223 163 1,526 1,480 103% Newbattle 191 147 152 171 144 101 906 1,050 86% Penicuik 99 117 100 98 85 55 554 945 59% St David's 111 103 83 97 106 71 571 945 60% Total 967 894 874 901 801 550 4,987 6,330 79% Special School Name Roll Capacity Occupancy Saltersgate 120 124 97% Total 12,378 19,892 62% Page 189 of 390
Page 190
34 Appendix 3 Housing Development in Midlothian by Primary School Catchment Area School Total Properties in Catchment 2001 Total Properties in Catchment 2008 Total Properties in Catchment 2016 Proposed Housing Development 2016 onwards Total future no. of properties in catchment Danderhall/Shawfair 1,397 1,397 1,410 3,971 5,381 Newton Farm/Cauldcoats 1,250 1,250 Kings Park 3,063 3,232 3,246 330 3,576 Tynewater 832 856 921 120 1,041 Woodburn 1,673 1,911 3,113 448 3,561 Mayfield 1,418 1,436 1,638 722 2,360 Lawfield 1,978 2,037 2,194 128 2,322 Newtongrange 2,030 2,206 2,353 173 2,526 Gorebridge 2,234 2,292 1,412 402 1,814 North Gorebridge 0 0 1,230 513 1,743 Stobhill 479 479 757 30 787 Redheugh 1,300 1,300 Moorfoot 359 412 391 39 430 Bonnyrigg 1,500 1,567 1,481 670 2,151 Lasswade 1,928 1,943 2,160 87 2,247 Hawthornden 1,290 1,306 2,110 42 2,152 Burnbrae 1,216 1,218 1,586 256 1,842 Hs12 750 750 Rosewell 631 762 815 801 1,616 Loanhead 1,310 1,407 1,162 223 1,385 Paradykes 1,468 1,474 1,503 353 1,856 Bilston 958 845 1,803 Roslin 1,332 1,355 858 541 1,399 Glencorse incl Auchendinny 325 329 499 362 861 Mauricewood 1,476 1,645 1,060 583 1,643 Cuiken 1,702 1,725 1,629 504 2,133 Cornbank 1,025 1,025 2,052 31 2,083 Strathesk 2,256 2,386 2,286 32 2,318 Total 32,922 34,400 38,824 15,506 54,330 Growth in Housing Stock since 2001 5,902 21,408 18% 65% Page 190 of 390
Page 191
35 Appendix 4 Map of Midlothian primary school catchments Page 191 of 390
Page 192
Page 192 of 390
Page 193
Midlothian Council Learning Estate ASN Investment Plan Page 193 of 390
Page 194
2 1. Introduction It is the duty of the education service to ensure that the education is directed to the development of the personality, talents and mental and physical abilities of the child or young person to their fullest potential (Standards in Schools Scotland Act 2000). This report takes account of both national legislation/policy frameworks and local strategic plans relevant to supporting children, young people and families. Midlothian Council’s vision “All children, young people, adults and communities in Midlothian are supported to be the best they can be. This will be achieved through a nurturing, respectful and collaborative approach that promotes wellbeing, equity, inclusion and lifelong learning.” Within education we need to be ambitious and strive for inclusion to be at the root of our ethos. We need to ensure that the support for children and young people with additional support needs is flexible within our learning estate, with aligned decision making processes and resources. We need to ensure we have strong training pathways to upskill all of our staff within learning and practice development, which incorporates time for coaching, mentoring, reflection and embedding into practice. Complex additional support needs may arise as a result of: - The severity of one or more factors resulting in need, and/or - The combined impact of a number of separate factors, one or more of which may be severe 2. ASN provisions Midlothian’s ASN learning estate has provisions that support a wide of additional support needs. The categories of the nature of need are: Complex Needs The needs of learners are associated with a level and pace of learning significantly below that of their peers (across most areas of the curriculum). In addition they may have other needs that impact on their communication, relationships and engagement in learning. This may include autism, physical and/or mental health needs, sensory needs and/or behaviour support needs. These needs require a highly individualised and highly adapted approach to teaching and learning and access to specialist resources and facilities. Social Complex Needs The needs of learners are primarily associated with a level and pace of learning significantly below that of their peers (across all areas of the curriculum), and emotional and behavioural support needs In addition they may have other needs that impact on their communication, relationships and engagement in learning. This may include autism, physical and/or mental health needs and/or sensory needs. These needs require a highly individualised and highly adapted approach to teaching and learning and access to specialist resources and facilities. Page 194 of 390
Page 195
3 Inclusion and Wellbeing The needs of learners are primarily associated with emotional and behavioural support needs. In addition they may have other needs that impact on their communication, relationships and engagement in learning. This may include autism, physical and/or mental health needs and/or sensory needs. These needs require a highly individualised and highly adapted approach to teaching and learning and access to specialist resources and facilities. Speech, Language and Communication The needs of learners are primarily associated with speech, language and communication needs. In addition they may have other needs that impact on their communication, relationships and engagement in learning. This may include autism, physical and/or mental health needs, sensory needs and/or behaviour support needs. Severe, Complex and Profound The needs of these learners are associated with a level and pace of learning significantly below that of their peers (across all areas of the curriculum). In addition they may have other needs that impact on their communication, relationships and engagement in learning. This may include autism, physical and/or mental health needs, sensory needs and/or behaviour support needs. These needs are significantly and/or medically complex and require a highly individualised and highly adapted approach to teaching and learning; and access to specialist resources, facilities and technology not ordinarily available in a mainstream learning environment. Our provisions are split into primary and secondary as stated below. We also have one all- through special school; Saltersgate. Primary Burnbrae Primary School Complex Needs Provision Cuiken Primary School Inclusion and Wellbeing Provision Gore Glen Primary School Complex Needs Provision Loanhead Primary School Inclusion and Wellbeing Provision Mayfield Speech, Language and Communication Provision St Andrew’s Primary School Complex Needs Provision Secondary Beeslack Annex Social and Complex Needs Provision Lasswade High School Complex Needs Provision Dalkeith High School Complex Needs Provision St David’s High School Complex Needs Provisions Saltersgate School for children and young people from P1-S6 with severe, complex and profound additional support needs. Within 12 of our schools we currently have an enhanced resource to support these schools to meet the need of their learners locally. The enhanced resource is given to the school to support specific needs within the school community. For some of our schools, this has Page 195 of 390
Page 196
4 supported learners from within a provision to return to their mainstream, supported by this enhanced support. 3. ASN Data and Capacity within Provisions In 2017 the percentage of children with additional support needs in Midlothian was 27.87% and has increased by 11.76% over the last few years with our most recent data indicating that 39.63% of our children and young people have an additional support need(s). It is important to highlight that the level of need within Midlothian continues to be higher than the National Average. ASN Pupils School Roll % of Roll ASN National ASN % 2017 3601 12919 27.87% 26.6% 2018 3629 13147 27.6% 28.7% 2019 4390 13356 32.8% 30.9% 2020 4664 13736 33.95% 32.3% 2021 6006 14089 42.63% 33% 2022 5533 13962 39.63% (Between 2021 and 2022, new Stages of Intervention were implemented. This was then quality assured in 2022 which is why there is a slight anomaly in the data) ASN numbers by need Referrals to Panel Stage 3 allocated (Provisions) Stage 4 allocated (Saltersgate) 2017 191 70 21 2018 160 81 5 2019 166 70 9 2020 162 68 12 2021 204 65 9 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2017 2022 Page 196 of 390
Page 197
5 2022 Aug-Nov 136 30 4 (Please note that 2022 includes the P7-S1 provision allocation for Aug 2023) Based on this trend, the increase in referrals to our placement panel, and the continuing growth in Midlothian the education service carried out an independent review of our specialist provisions. The outcome of the independent report made 8 recommendations to be considered by the education service. Of these 8 recommendations, 2 relate specifically to the learning estate and the associated resources. “In order to rationalise current provision, or for future developments, the council should consider having local ‘ enhanced’ provision for ASN within mainstream schools rather than various categories of provision.” Over the last 5 years there has been an increase in referrals to the ASN pupil placement panel. The table below provides the number of applications received and the number of children and young people placed in our ASN provisions. Referrals Stage 3 allocated (Provisions) Stage 4 allocated (Saltersgate) Outwith 2017 191 70 21 2018 160 81 * 2019 166 70 * 2020 162 68 12 2021 204 65 * 2022 so far 136 30 * * (2022 data includes the P7 children and young people who require a place for S1 in August 2023; * indicates less than 10 children) There are currently 27 children and young people from P1-S6 who are currently waiting to receive a place in a specialist provision. School Capacity Provision Spaces for 2023-24 Saltersgate (P1-S6) 100 0 Beeslack SCN 8 1 Beeslack CN 12 2 Dalkeith 10 0 Lasswade 20 0 St David’s 28 0 Penicuik 0 0 Newbattle 0 0 Total 178 3 Page 197 of 390
Page 198
6 Known projections for P1 August 2023 (NB these are only the children who are known to the Early Years ASN team and so therefore are not entirely accurate until the P1 placement panel in January 2023) Predicted Provision Spaces for 2023-2024 Projected Spaces required at Stage 3 and 4 P1 August 2023 11 39 Total projections for August 2023 including P1 and S1 placement and those on the wait list Predicted Provision Spaces for 2023-2024 Projected Spaces required at Stage 3 and 4 August 2023 14 89 Due to the growth in population and the increasing ASN need the local authority needs to urgently address capacity needs to support the children and young people who require specialist support. If we are unable to support the children and young people with additional support needs within Midlothian, we then need to seek placements out with the authority. The education authority also has a duty to provide home to school transport for children attending outwith placements which can cost in excess of £57,000 p/a per child. The table below shows the average cost of out with authority placements. 4. Proposed ASN Estate In Midlothian we are fully committed to our responsibilities outlined in the Children and Young People (Scotland) Act and therefore committed to ensuring young people claim their right to an education which develops their personality, talents and abilities to their fullest potential. In 2022, the education service added an enhanced resource to 12 primary schools, this allowed them to support transition back to mainstream for some of their children which in turn increased capacity within our provisions for other children requiring this nurturing environment. Schools with this enhanced resource also made fewer referrals to the education resource placement group Aug-Nov than those schools who are not currently benefiting from this resource. The education service propose that all schools have an enhanced resource to support the presumption of mainstream and the level of need within their school. Further detail on how this can be achieved and the financial implications are set out below. Inclusion Day Placement £78,960 Complex Needs Secondary £42,000.00 Complex Needs Primary £38,000 Residential Placement £245,785 Specialist VI £52,000 Specialist HI £37,102 Page 198 of 390
Page 199
7 In line with the original intent set out in the 2017-2047 Learning Estate Strategy, the education service proposes that all of our secondary schools have the provision to support young people with complex needs. This will support all of our young people to access mainstream school education where appropriate within an environment that enables a 1:2.5 adult ratio. This will reduce the cost of transporting pupils across the authority and ensure our children and young people remain within their local community and their peers. It is proposed that each Secondary school has an Inclusion Hub to ensure learners receive targeted support to enable them to engage in learning in their local catchment school. This is in line with the concept of staged intervention which allows for less intrusive and more efficient support. The tailored interventions support young people to strengthen their Health and Wellbeing, build positive relationships with their peers, thrive in mainstream settings, equip them with skills for life and qualifications to prepare them for the world of work. Secondary Schools will be responsible for the placement into inclusion hubs and may work with their feeder primary schools to support an enhanced transition from P6. The following criteria is subject to consultation with relevant stakeholders: • Pupil is not able to access specific classes due to anxiety/social difficulties • Pupil is experiencing emotionally-based school non-attendance • Pupil is transitioning into school with support of CLLE as part of a phased integration • Pupil is on a flexible time/alternative timetable/ build up timetable • Pupil is at risk of exclusion - as evidenced through discussion at Wellbeing Meetings This proposal will increase capacity across our estate, support our vision to ensure our children and young people are educated within their locality or as close to as is reasonable. It ensures that all of our children and young people will benefit from high quality learning environments that meet their need. Page 199 of 390
Page 200
8 Page 200 of 390
Page 201
LC1 LC 2 LC3 LC4 Dalkeith HS St David's HS Lasswade HS Beeslack HS Penicuik HS Newbattle HS Shawfair Gorebridge Stage 1 - Universal Nurture/Support for Learning All schools and all classrooms are nurturing and respond to need – Learning Assistant and Support for Learning allocation for all schools Stage 2 Primary Enhanced Support for Learning and/or targeted Nurture and/or complex needs This may look like an enhanced class to support children and young people with complex needs within their catchment school. King's Park St Matthew's Paradykes Bilston Cuiken Mayfield Danderhall Gore Glen Woodburn Sacred Heart Hawthornden Mauricewood Strathesk Stobhill Shawfair Gorebridge Tynewater St Andrew's Burnbrae Roslin Cornbank Newtongrange Redhaugh St David's Bonnyrigg Lawfield St Luke's HS12 Moorfoot St Mary's Loanhead Easthouses Rosewell Lasswade Stage 2 Secondary Enhanced Support for Learning and/or targeted Nurture Dalkeith HS St David's HS Lasswade HS Beeslack HS Penicuik HS Newbattle Shawfair HS Gorebridge HS Stage 3 Primary ASN needs inc complex needs This may look like, children and young people who are unable to access the curriculum within their catchment mainstream Burnbrae Hawthornden Easthouses Gore Glen Loanhead Stage 3 Secondary Complex Needs Dalkeith HS St Davids Lasswade Beeslack Penicuik Newbattle Shawfair Gorebridge Inclusion Hub Inclusion Hub Inclusion Hub Inclusion Hub Inclusion Hub Inclusion Hub Stage 4 Primary Specialist Mayfield Beeslack Medical Shawfair HI Redhaugh Stage 4 Secondary Specialist Saltersgate Beeslack Medical Shawfair HI 5. ASN Learning Estate Proposal Page 201 of 390
Page 202
10 Page 202 of 390
Page 203
Midlothian Council 13 December 2022 Item 8.6 Council House Building Programme - Progress Update December 2022 Report by Kevin Anderson, Executive Director, Place Report for Information 1 Recommendations Council is recommended to: a) Note the content of this report and the progress made on Phases 2 to 4. b) Note the sites now underway to complete Phase 3 and Phase 4, projected handover programme and progress related to Open Market Purchases . c) Note the potential Phase 5 sites currently under consideration should funding for those sites be made available. d) Note the projected costs/budget expenditure appended to this report e) Note the inability to Progress Phase 5 projects without further funding approved 2 Purpose of Report To update the Council on the status of the overall housing programme on approved sites and proposed new sites for the Council building programme and other initiatives for the target delivery. Date 28th November 2022 Report Contact: Name: Greg Vettraino Contact: greg.vettraino@midlothian.gov.uk Page 203 of 390
Page 204
3 Housing Building Programme and Planned Works 3.1 Council Housing Programme – Phase 1 & 2 Sites Phase 1 provided 864 additional houses within Midlothian over a period of 7 years with a total budget of £108,700,000 and is now complete. Phase 2 targeted providing a further 412 additional homes within Midlothian. With a budget of £77,121,000 funded from the Housing Revenue Capital Account enhanced with Scottish Government grant funding, an actual 489 homes were delivered under the Phase 2 budget. Table 1: Phase 1 & 2 Sites Ref Location Number of Units Cumulati ve 2 Woodburn Ct, Dalkeith 14 14 37 Pentland Way, Penicuik 63 77 9 Craigiebield, Penicuik 17 94 18 Eastfield Drive, Penicuik 17 111 42 Jackson St, Penicuik 14 125 60 Edgefield Road, Loanhead 41 166 51a Stobhill Road, Gorebridge 37 203 51b Stobhill Road, Gorebridge 32 235 108 Polton St, Bonnyrigg 18 253 41 Complex Care, Penicuik 12 265 119 Millers, Shawfair 23 288 23 Woodburn Terrace, Dalkeith 10 298 47 Kirkhill Rd, Penicuik 21 319 110 Clerk St, Loanhead 28 347 134 Paradykes /Barratts, Loanhead 21 368 115 Castlelaw Terrace, Bilston 8 376 144 Barratts, Roslyn 13 389 39 Crichton Ave, Pithead 10 399 118 Bellway - Danderhall, Shawfair 47 446 117 Cockpen Terrace (Hopefield Yard), Bonnyrigg 16 462 146 Bellway - Wester Cowden, Dalkeith 27 489 All (Phase 2 Sites) TOTAL 489 Site 117 Hopefield Yard, Bonnyrigg is the only remaining Phase 2 site still under construction, due to complete April 2023. Page 204 of 390
Page 205
3.2 Council Housing Programme - Phase 3 & 4 combined Phase 3 & 4 funding combined comprises £166,258,000 (£42,208,000 for Phase 3 and £94,050,000 for Phase 4 plus further allocated funding of £20,000,000 plus a further £10,000,000 recently approved November 2022 Council). Current projections are targeting a potential further 729 additional homes within Midlothian. It should be noted that the exact number of sites and homes will be subject to some variation as the project evolves, sites get confirmed or rejected, procurement initiatives progress, costs get purified and designs develop but the current sites statistics are as set out below. Table 2: Phase 3 & 4 Sites Ref Location Number of Homes Cumulative C450 Buccleuch St (excludes Retail units), Dalkeith 10 10 140 Dalhousie Mains - Springfield, Bonnyrigg 70 80 151 Dandara, Shawfair 18 98 122 Former Co-op site, Bonnyrigg 20 118 116 Newmills Road (former Dalkeith HS), Dalkeith 92 210 131 Burnbrae Rd Hopefield – Co-op, Hopefield 20 230 53 Morris Road, Newtongrange 79 309 149 Barratt, Millerhill/Shawfair 33 342 150 Barratt, Roslin Expansion 53 395 130 (1) Newbattle HS (Phase 1), Newtongrange 90 485 C398/114 Dundas Highbank (Extra Care) St Marys, Bonnyrigg 46 531 32/34 Newbyres, Gorebridge 75 606 109 Conifer Road, Mayfield 72 678 148 Newton Church Road, Danderhall 23 701 142 Stewart Milne, Shawfair 28 729 All (Phase 3 & 4) Sites TOTAL 729 The total of Phase 2, 3 & 4 homes is currently estimated at 1201, comprising 489 from Phase 2 budget and 712 from the Phase 3 & 4 budgets. Progress during 2022 continues with 661 homes currently being constructed on site either through commencement of enabling works or main contract works as of November 2022. Page 205 of 390
Page 206
A total of 51 homes at 2 sites are planned to have works commence on site in 2023 funded from the remaining Phase 3 and 4 budget. The procurement solution varies between a missives style (purchase) or entering into a design & build contract with the developer. Housing developments currently on site (“on site” being deemed to include enabling works in advance of main contract works) or commencing in 2023 are set out in the table below: Table 3: Sites currently under development Ref Location Number of Homes Cumulative On site Starting 2023 C450 Buccleuch St (excludes Retail units), Dalkeith 10 10 10 140 Dalhousie Mains - Springfield, Bonnyrigg 70 80 70 151 Dandara, Shawfair 18 98 18 122 High street, Former Co-op site, Bonnyrigg 20 118 20 116 Newmills Road (former Dalkeith HS), Dalkeith 92 210 92 131 Burnbrae Rd Hopefield – Co-op, Hopefield 20 230 20 53 Morris Road, Newtongrange 79 309 79 150 Barratt, Roslin Expansion 53 362 53 130 (1) Newbattle HS (Phase 1), Newtongrange 90 452 90 C398/114 Dundas Highbank (Extra Care) St Marys, Bonnyrigg 46 498 46 32/34 Newbyres, Gorebridge 75 573 75 109 Conifer Road, Mayfield 72 645 72 148 Newton Church Road, Danderhall 23 668 23 117 Cockpen Terrace, Hopefield Yard 16 684 16 142 Stewart Milne, Shawfair 28 712 28 Totals 661 51 For specific site progress updates please refer to the Housing Dashboard Report Summary October 2022 accompanying this report (Appendix 1). Page 206 of 390
Page 207
Handover Programme Figure 1 below illustrates the programme of handovers to tenants based on current projected completions. The current high levels of activity on site results in a consistent range of 20-50 new homes per month being brought into Council housing stock from mid-2022, with a particular peak in Spring 2023 as several sites (Newmills Road, Dandara at Shawfair, Buccleuch Street and Hopefield Yard in Bonnyrigg), are all programmed to start handovers. Figure 1: Handover Programme 3.3 Council Housing Programme - Phase 5 The projects listed above will expend the Phase 3 and 4 budget. Until such time as the Council is in a position to commit to Phase 5 and funding is made available, no further Council social housing projects can be committed to. There are currently a range of sites that are known to be coming through the planning process or for which proposals are currently being developed, which will give rise to an affordable housing requirement to be met by either Midlothian Council or one of our affordable housing partners. Page 207 of 390
Page 208
Table 5: Potential Phase 5 sites There are also 2 sites with potential for social housing development should the Council decide to close these facilities however these are not in the Social Housing Investment Plan at this stage. Site 121 Stobhill Depot affordable provision (circa 50 homes) - any plans for this site are currently on hold until review of Stobhill Masterplan is completed. It is envisaged that the masterplan will be completed by the end of 2022/early 2023. Site 112 High Street (Garage), Bonnyrigg (circa 40 homes) – would require a new depot/garage to be completed to allow the site to be vacated before becoming available. Potential for development is clearly a few years away. Midlothian Council are also developing plans for affordable housing delivery in Dalkeith Town Centre and Newtongrange village as part of housing-led regeneration strategies. 3.4 Routes to Development With regard to these potential sites, subject to securing further funding, there are currently 4 known routes to potential development 1. Direct build on land already owned by Midlothian Available Midlothian land suitable for social housing is now limited. Land that remains is often more difficult to develop in terms of site abnormals. Ref Location Homes 153 Newtongrange former Library Site 5 tbc Auchendinny – Bellway Homes 70 tbc Shawfair (AA2/AA3) – Bellway Homes 35 tbc Penicuik – Rullion Road - CALA 68 tbc Shawfair, Persimmon (Plot P) 49 tbc South Tynewater, Pathhead – Muir Group 12 tbc Penicuik EHD – various small sites combined 50 tbc Old Craighall Road, Shawfair - Mactaggart & Mickel 48 tbc Plot R Shawfair - Barratt Homes 33 tbc Wellington School, Penicuik 12 tbc Wellington Farm, Millerhill 90 bc Lingerwood, Mayfield (Springfield) 157 Page 208 of 390
Page 209
2. Housing Developer S75 affordable element There are a number of housing developers active in the Midlothian area. Potential remains to negotiate with these developers regarding the S75 affordable element to secure Phase 5 projects. 3. Land acquisition and direct build Whilst this is an option, finding land available that is suitable for social housing and affordable to the Council has become a rarity. There are currently no known sites currently under consideration Council officers however opportunities in the market place will be actively explored if and when they arise 4. EHD (Edinburgh Home Demonstrator) The Council housing development team have expressed willingness to be a South East (SE) Partner within the EHD Programme (Pilot 3 element). EHD advises • Pilot 1 - (Granton Phase D1, Edinburgh) is currently on site, • Pilot 2 - (Greendykes, Edinburgh) is in the early stages of detailed design. • Pilot 3 - The aim to formally commence projects in the coming months. • Key elements to be demonstrated through Pilot 3 are: • Collaborative procurement of c.800 homes across multiple clients, local authority areas and sites • Deployment of an Interim Delivery Partner to support procurement and delivery • Adoption of the EHD Design & Performance Standard • Adoption of the EHD housing typologies • Agreement and Adoption of an Alliance Agreement or equivalent It is proposed that a collaborative procurement incorporating several local authorities/RSLs be delivered across multiple sites for a feasibility commission initially. This will be carried out by a common design team to provide due diligence around initial sites, support adoption of the EHD typologies and enable bundling of Pilot 3 projects. The Collaborative Feasibility commission will provide a clear set of deliverables for each site that will create the conditions for successful delivery and bundling. Procurement is likely to be through the CEC Professional Services Framework, which is open to all of the SE Partners and RSLs, with an option to directly award the appointment of a Page 209 of 390
Page 210
single design team and execute individual services orders with each of the participants. In support of the proposal the EHD programme is offering a one- off contribution of £30k towards the cost of the commission with any further funding contributions payable by each of the participating local authorities and RSLs, on a cost per site basis. 3.5 Proposed Affordable Housing Provision from External Developers As noted above, the Council has the opportunity to secure affordable housing via a planning obligations secured through Section 75 agreements with developers, securing 25% of the total number of homes built as affordable. As a means to procurement, the Council has the opportunity to either: 1. enter into land purchase/design & build contracts with these developers or 2. purchase completed houses from these developers Utilising support from legal and estates colleagues either way has been proven to work. The choice largely depends on what the developer prefers. House type and specification varies however between developers and each requires significant detailed review and discussion in order to ensure these are acceptable to the Council. Developers are requested to adopt where possible design and specification requirements aligning to those of the Council. There will be instances where housing development team officers will have to make concessions. For example no developer to date has come forward with the capability to build to Passivhaus standard. Council officers have worked hard however to secure the best result possible in terms of energy consumption and generally obtain energy performance well in excess of the developer’s own private housing stock. Sites with Developers for completed home purchases (turn-key) or Land Purchase/Building D&B Contracts are located at: Table 6: Homes deliver via Planning Obligations Phase 2/3/4 sites - Developer affordable Completed Ref Location Number of Homes Completed Page 210 of 390
Page 211
3.6 Zero Carbon In compliance with the Council’s Climate Emergency Declaration, officers have development a new Net Zero Housing Design Guide which incorporates within its design brief the need to target a Zero Carbon approach with an ambitious implementation plan and a requirement to meet Passivhaus standards. Passivhaus is an internationally known standard with exceptionally high energy efficiency working to achieve buildings close to Zero Carbon and in turn address fuel poverty issue (as heating demand is minimised) in a time of ever increasing fuel bills. Housing Development Team Officers have worked hard to embody Passivhaus into the social housing procurement programme wherever possible. This has resulted in Midlothian becoming one of the leading providers of new Passivhaus social housing in Scotland. There are arguments to utilise alternative design solutions which may also achieve Passivhaus energy performance targets but historical research available suggests that this invariably leads to a “Performance Gap” where the delivered solution does not live up to expectations in terms of energy performance. Passivhaus is a fully tried and tested solution with guaranteed performance outcomes (which negates the need for many years of follow on testing to monitor and prove performance as with some alternatives). The following Council projects currently under construction or which will deliver Passivhaus homes are: Table 7: Midlothian Council Passivhaus Sites 119 Miller Homes, Shawfair 23 2020 134 Paradykes /Barratts, Loanhead 21 Jan-21 144 Barratts, Roslyn 13 May-21 118 Bellway - Danderhall, Shawfair 47 Jan-22 146 Bellway - Wester Cowden, Dalkeith 27 Jul-22 On site Ref Location Number of Homes Handover 140 Dalhousie Mains - Springfield, Bonnyrigg 70 Nov-22 150 Barratt, Roslin Expansion 53 Jun-23 151 Dandara, Shawfair 18 Jan-23 Page 211 of 390
Page 212
Ref Location Number of Homes Status C450 Buccleuch St (excludes Retail Homes), Dalkeith 10 on site 122 High Street, Bonnyrigg 20 tender 131 Burnbrae Rd Hopefield – Co-op, Hopefield 20 on site 130 (1) Newbattle HS (Phase 1), Newtongrange 90 on site C398/114 Dundas Highbank (Extra Care) St Marys, Bonnyrigg 46 tender 148 Newton Church Road, Danderhall 23 design Total 189 The construction and the use of buildings are responsible for around 40% of all energy used in the UK. Considerate building design is therefore critical to fight the climate emergency. The following aspects of sustainability needs to be at the heart of the design of each housing project: • Social sustainability - which includes health and wellbeing - this incorporates place making, biodiversity, the economy, walking communities, 20-Minute Neighbourhoods, sustainable transport, internal air quality, day lighting, play, heritage, inclusivity, accessibility, services, ageing population and local economy etc. Proposed designs to be inclusive and sensitive to social and physical challenges e.g. ageing population, learning difficulties, autism, physical disabilities etc. • Energy efficiency - this includes minimising the operational energy demand (through Passive Housing, EnerPhit, PAS 2035 etc.), • Post Occupancy Evaluation, recording and sharing data, and addressing fuel poverty. Minimising embodied carbon – this includes avoiding demolition where possible, energy efficient retrofits, retention of buildings for place making and heritage purposes, mass use of environmentally friendly materials with low embodied energy, designing for easy maintenance and conversion, designing for durability and long-life spans, and designs incorporating circular economy principles. The assessment of the specific impact of building to a passivhaus standard is difficult to ascertain because of the volatile market and high inflation on projects from factors such as Covid19, Brexit and the war in Ukraine, which have all impacted the construction sector. A direct comparison is not possible as elements such as site abnormals, which will also impact on the overall development cost need to be extracted from the tenders and any site infrastructure costs. Two sites recently tendered and won by the same contractor at Newbattle (passivhaus specification) and Conifer Road Mayfield Page 212 of 390
Page 213
(Building Regulations silver active standard) are currently being analysed by external cost consultants to determine the difference in cost of construction between the two. The cost impact of building to Passivhaus Standards is still undergoing detailed review expected in coming weeks but unfortunately too late for this report. A straightforward assessment of overall development costs for units built to a passivhaus and non-passivhaus standard does indicate that, without stripping out the factors above, there is a cost differential between homes built to a passivhaus standard and those not. However, as stated, not all of this differential will be attributable to passivhaus. Table 8: Development Costs – Passiv & Non-Passiv Site Projected Number of Units Projected Development Cost Average Cost Per Unit Passivhaus Site Site 26 Buccleuch St 10 3,302,760 330,276 Site 122 Bonnyrigg High Street 20 6,242,000 312,100 Site 130 Newbattle 90 30,731,000 341,456 Non - Passivhaus Site Site 109 – Conifer (MLC) 72 17,919,000 248,875 Site 116 - Newmills Road (MLC) 92 22,719,000 246,946 Site 117 - Cockpen Terrace (MLC) 16 4,840,000 302,500 3.7 Grant Funding Officers continue to pursue available grant monies to assist in land purchases/construction of Council housing in Midlothian. More detail on grant funding is available in Midlothian’s Strategic Housing Investment Plan. Regular meetings with the Scottish Government are undertaken to update programme and ensure spend is maximised. The Scottish Government have advised (November 2022) that the 2022/2023 funding limit for Midlothian currently stands at £10.388m with the Council’s projected funding from that at £7.741m. Scottish Government have advised (November 2022) that the Midlothian 22/23 Affordable Housing Supply Programme (AHSP) has drawn down £3.384 million (44%) of the allocated funding to date. Page 213 of 390
Page 214
3.9 Open Market Purchases Midlothian Council has an Open Market Purchase Scheme whereby ex-council properties are purchased on the open market and returned to use as social rented housing stock. Midlothian Council receives funding towards each Open Market Purchase from the Scottish Government. Between 2017/18 and 2021/22, Midlothian Council bought 98 properties from the open market. There have been 11 successful purchases in the current financial year to date with a target of 26 by March 2023. 4 Report Implications 4.1 Resource All the costs of employing the necessary members of Housing Development Team staff are included in the project budgets. Due to the efforts and commitment of these Council officers a large number of projects are now on site or starting on site in 2022/23. Staff resourcing is being re-evaluated to ensure that sufficient resources are in place to effectively manage this. Particular emphasis has been placed on recruitment of additional site quality control personnel to ensure build quality remains at a high level. 4.2 Risk The programme risks for the affordable housing programme are: Funding Without further Phase 5 funding from the Housing Revenue Account, the Midlothian new social housing project cannot progress. Recession impacting on developer-led sites It is forecast that the country is likely to be heading into a recession with interest rates being offered to new homeowners rising. These factors may cause developers to rethink the viability and programming of their sites, resulting in sites being put on hold. If so, this may slow the rate of development across Midlothian and the delivery of affordable housing. Scottish Water Capacity issues Council officers continue to liaise with Scottish Water re future potential Council housing developments and be considered for inclusion in infrastructure capacity upgrades. Nonetheless Scottish Water infrastructure capacity Page 214 of 390
Page 215
Site availability Midlothian has exhausted the majority of available land that it owns and which is suitable for housing development. Sites that remain are generally those that had low viability/significant site abnormals, which results in increasing development costs. The potential remains for further sites to become available via either Council building closures or acquisition of sites on the open market. Covid-19 Currently no significant risk to project delivery is being associated with future Covid 19 outbreaks. This is being monitored however the situation appears to have stabilised. Brexit Mixed feedback continues to be received from contractors regarding the impact of Brexit. This is just a part of a number of factors (Covid/war in Ukraine/political and economic changes) that have led to increased costs/inflation and a forecast recession. Most express concern regarding increased costs and supply chain issues. Whilst recession tends to reduce the impact of inflation, current inflation remains high. This will result in fewer homes being built for the budget made available. 4.3 Single Midlothian Plan and Business Transformation Themes addressed in this report: Adult Health Care and Housing Sustainable Growth 4.4 Impact on Performance and Outcomes The proposed works support the Council’s Local Housing Strategy and accord with Midlothian Council’s Corporate Priorities. The Scottish Government requires all local authorities to prepare a Strategic Housing Investment Plan (SHIP) that identifies the main strategic investment priorities for affordable housing over a 5 year period. This is required on an annual basis as the Scottish Government requires detail on the Affordable Housing Supply Programme in each regional area towards meeting the national target of supporting new affordable homes. The SHIP sets out Midlothian Council’s approach to promoting affordable housing investment and meeting housing supply targets identified in the Strategic Development Plan for Edinburgh and South East Scotland. Page 215 of 390
Page 216
The delivery of more affordable housing remains a high priority for Midlothian Council. Despite significant investment in affordable housing there is still a shortage of affordable housing in Midlothian with 4,237 households placed on the Council’s Housing List. 4.5 Adopting a Preventative Approach Reviewing and utilising different procurement options in order to promote early delivery. 4.6 Involving Communities and Other Stakeholders Consultations internally and externally continue to be carried out with all appropriate stakeholders ensuring input/comment on the proposed layouts / house types and mix. This will be undertaken for the additional sites. 4.7 Ensuring Equalities An Integrated Impact Assessment (IIA) has been undertaken on the Local Housing Strategy 2021-26 to ensure that the needs of local communities have been fully considered. The Strategic Housing Investment Plan 2021-26 reflects identified needs and draws on findings from the IIA when considering the implications flowing from the translation of strategic aims into housing policies. 4.8 Supporting Sustainable Development The new build housing programme will comply with all current building regulations and follows best practice in line with the Council’s policies on the environment. In compliance with the Council’s Climate Emergency Declaration, the design brief has been amended to assist in the move to a Zero Carbon approach. We are currently pursuing a requirement to meet Passivhaus standard, an international proven standard which achieves low energy design through its fabric first approach. It also helps address fuel poverty issues as heating demand is minimised, an increasingly important factor with the move away from Natural Gas to electric based heating systems. All projected costs for future developments include a 6% cost allowance of to accommodate the enhanced specification. The Council’s Climate Change Emergency provides that the Council will aim to achieve Net Zero Carbon in all its activities by 2030. The RIBA have published target metrics for domestic buildings which to achieve a 2030 Net Zero Challenge require that new domestic dwellings achieve a target of between 0 and 35kWh/m2/yr. Passivhaus is a means of achieving this target however the construction process itself produces Carbon (so called ‘embodied carbon’). Page 216 of 390
Page 217
Officers are currently considering the implications of reducing embodied carbon which if 2030 Net Zero Challenge is to be met will require a target of less than 300KgCO2e/m2 (embodied carbon per meter squared) to be achieved in construction. Initiatives such as the Edinburgh Homes Demonstrator (EHD) Project previously mentioned, and the adoption of Whole Life Carbon Analysis may provide the means of achieving these goals. Fundamental to all new Passivhaus projects will be the need to undertake Post Occupancy Evaluation (POE) surveys to assess how effective projects are achieving these sustainability goals. Future involvement of Building Maintenance and other stakeholders in all of these initiatives will be fundamental to their success and developing the Councils understanding of the implications of these changes towards achieving Net Zero targets. 4.9 IT Issues Building Information Modelling (BIM) is being utilised to deliver the projects. “Revit” models exist for the Council’s generic house types and flat types which get updated to reflect new legislation and design criteria. It is proposed that these models will be used for the completion of all Phases. The adoption of 3d modelling will also have a key role in assessing the sustainability of house design’s and key construction approaches particularly in respect avoiding ‘cold bridges’ which impact on thermal effectiveness and also can be used to assess the embodied carbon content of each element of the construction. Council officers have been equipped with homeworking IT capability to enable them to continue to work through any lockdown situation. Site Quality Inspection staff are being equipped with SurfacePro tablets instead of laptops to allow them to have the ability to operate these on site and view drawings and making comments on screen much faster and easier. This will in turn provide more effective and efficient delivery of the service. 29 November 2022 Report Contact: Greg Vettraino, Capital Contracts Manager Background papers – Appendix 1 Housing Dashboard Summary Oct 22 Page 217 of 390
Page 218
Page 218 of 390
Page 219
Midlothian Social Housing Project Programme - Oct 22 Project SHIP Site Reference Units Project Handover/ Timeline Budget Risk Resource Key Achievements / Milestones Date Planned Achievements / Milestones Date 1 C276.3234 Newbyres, Gorebridge Newbyres Crescent, Gorebridge T34262 75 Apr-25 R A A G Coal Authority Approval Oct-22 Agree remediation strategy and complete grouting exercise and mine shaft works Mar-23 2 C276.53 Morris Road Newtongrange Morris Road, Newtongrange T35727 79 Mar-23 R A G G Title issue for wayleave / substation now resolved - to allow power to units. Aug-22 Handover first tranche of units - early Nov through to Mar 23 (numbers tbc) Nov-22 3 C276.109 Conifer Road Mayfield Conifer Road, Mayfield T35733 72 Jun-24 A A G G Main Contract - start on site Oct-22 Site set up and start infrastructure works Oct-22 4 C375.39 Crichton Avenue Pathhead Completed site - not in SHIP 10 Jun-21 G G G G Completed Jun-21 EV car charging works/end of defects Dec-22 5 C375.47 Kirkhill Road, Penicuik Completed site - not in SHIP 21 Jan-21 G G G G Completed including making good defects Oct-22 EV car charging works/Final Certificate Dec-22 6 C375.51C Stobhill Road, Gorebridge Completed site - not in SHIP dropped from consideration 7 C375.110 Clerk Street Loanhead Completed site - not in SHIP 28 Feb-21 G G G G Completed Feb-21 EV car charging works/final account Feb-23 8 C398/C375.114 Dundas Highbank (Extra Care) St Marys, Bonnyrigg Bonnyrigg, Polton Street (Complex Care) P41758 46 Nov-24 R A G G Tenders returned Aug-22 Tender Report/Gateway Review Oct-22 9 C375.115 Castelaw Terrace, Bilston Completed site - not in SHIP 8 Nov-21 G G G G Completed Nov-21 EV car charging works/end of defects Dec-22 10 C375.116 Newmills Road, Dalkeith Newmills Road, Dalkeith T35300 P40873 92 Apr-23 G G G G Main works commenced mid April 21. Ground works & utilities ongoing. Substructure almost complete, Timber kits almost complete. Passiv substructure underway to two units. Extra Care Home progressing well with kit up and wind and watertight and internal trades started. Oct-22 Superstructure completed to various units (others ongoing) Nov-22 11 C375.117 Cockpen Terrace, Hopefield Yard Cockpen Terrace, Bonnyrigg T29437 16 Apr-23 G G G G Main works commenced mid March 22. Ground works & utilities ongoing. Substructure completed. 5 out of 6 superstructure complete wind and watertight with blockwork and roughcast following on and internals progressing. Oct-22 Superstructure completion Nov-22 Timeline: Currently reporting 17 weeks behind programme but contractor hoping to reduce this over coming months. 10 weeks extension of time granted - so revised completion date April 23 Budget: Risk: Resource: Timeline: Main works on site. Completion target 4 April 23 Budget: Risk: Resource: Timeline: EV car charging to be done during defects period. Programmed to commence end March but supply capacity issues raised by contractor. Budget: Traditional contract based on firm BQ. Draft Final account agreed - to be signed off. Cost overrun due to variations sub 10% contract value Risk: Resource: Timeline: EV car charging to be done during defects period. Programmed to commence end March but supply capacity issues raised by contractor. Budget: Draft Final account agreed - to be signed off. Risk: Resource: Project stopped due to prohibitive costs. Timeline: EV car charging and minor works to Block 1 fence to be done during defects period. End of defects inspections to be carried out. Budget: Loss and expense claim from HV cable diversion likely to result in project overspend. Final account claim received from contractor with a £300k claim being assessed by Doig & Smith external cost consultant £150k now agreed with Cruden and allowance included in this cost report). Risk: Resource: Timeline: Delays due to Dundas Highbank (Extra Care) St Marys now includes for 3 storey block Extra Care (Now 46 units). Passivhaus delays included. 6.10.22 - Tender returns arrived on 29 August but many tender queries resulted in a tender report being delayed until after holiday period on 26 October. Value Engineering underway. Gateway report due for the CPAMB in Nov. Report to Council in Dec. Site Start now anticipated in February '23. Completion now Nov 24. Budget: Clarity on original budget versus current forecast to be updated once real tenders received. High inflation implications expected due to volatile market. Risk: Resource: Timeline: Completed November 2021 Budget: Risk: Resource: HOUSING NEW BUILD PROGRAMME DASHBOARD Notes on Red/Amber Statuses Timeline: A continuous programme of enabling works to be carried out until main contract. Mine capping and grouting works more extensive than anticipated. Current difficulties involve the grouting scope. Coal Authority agreement to reduced mine capping to shaft 3 and overall approval to grouting scope has taken significantly longer than anticipated. Grouting contract currently being tendered. Expected grouting start on site now Jan 23 with a 3 month contract. Main works to follow now likely to be put back to April/May 23 as a result. Budget: 4 years inflation plus new ground gas/foundation solution costs and SW solution costs to be added. Agreed open book re-pricing with contractor - same as for Conifer Road site which will be progressed once final works design solution has been worked up. High inflation a concern. Design solution will include for sprinklers and ASHP to all properties with associated costs. Risk: Contract agreement still to complete (low risk) but inflationary costs expected to be similar to that advised at Conifer with continued hyper-inflation due to market volatility. Finalisation of ground remediation and mining risk remains removed with Coal Authority approval obtained. Total number of units remains 75. Resource: Timeline: Site start commenced was delayed re Scottish Water Approval by approx. 1 year. Wayleave for electrical supply held up by third parties outwith Council control now finally resolved. SP connection expected start September. 6 week programme for follow on completion works. First handovers are now scheduled for mid October. The phased hand overs are in the process of being agreed with the contractor and housing colleagues. The target is for all handovers by Dec 22 (however this may now move into January 23 - yet tbc). AFDD's also required - may cause delay and will be additional cost. Budget: Overspend of approximately £1.5m due to asbestos remediation and relocation of water main to accommodate the development of this and the adjacent site, SP connection delay issue and AFDD requirement. Request received by contractor to consider additional losses he has incurred as a result of recent high inflation in material supply costs. This is being evaluated against recent government advice. Further claim for additional costs due to delayed handover expected to come from contractor. Risk: Resource: Timeline: Remediation works commenced in 14 Feb now complete. Offsite drainage commenced 28 Mar 2022 now complete. Main works contract commenced on site 3 October 2022. ASHP instructed in place of gas heat source will involve some redesign and additional utilities infrastructure works. AFDDs required. Budget: Budget to be discussed at CPAMB. Overspend due to site contamination and Scottish Water drainage mitigation issues and addition of ASHP. Programme also delayed significantly due to Scottish Water approval thus inflationary costs impacted due to delay. High inflation experienced due to volatile market conditions. All now reported and costs approved. Risk: Resource: Page 1 of 4Page 219 of 390
Page 220
12 C375.118 Newton Church Road, Danderhall (Bellway) Completed site - not in SHIP 47 Jan-22 G G G G End of defects inspections reported Sep-22 End of Defects completed Jan-23 13 C375.122 Bonnyrigg High St High Street, Bonnyrigg - Phase 1 (Complex Care) P41147 20 Oct-23 A G G G Tenders returned Oct-22 Tender report and award Oct-22 14 C375.128 Mac&Mic, Millerhill, Shawfair Old Craighall Road, Shawfair (Mactaggart & Mickel) P41836 48 TBC R A A G tbc tbc tbc tbc 15 C375.130(1) Newbattle HS (Phase 1), Newtongrange Mayfield, Easthouses Road, former Newbattle High School, Phase 1 P42523 90 Nov-24 G G G G Main contract award Oct-22 Start on site Nov-22 16 C375.131 Burnbrae Rd Hopefield - Coop Burnbrae Rd, Hopefield P417332 20 Mar-23 G G G G Utilities 65%; Substructure 54% Aug-22 Superstructure completion Nov-22 17 C375.134 Paradykes Loanhead Completed site - not in SHIP 21 Jan-21 G G G G Completed Jan-21 n/a n/a 18 C375.140 Dalhousie Mains Dalhousie, Bonnyrigg (Springfield Homes) P43427 70 Nov-22 G G G G 44 handovers completed to date Sep-22 Final handover Nov-22 19 C375.144 Barratt - Roslin Moat View, Roslin Completed site - not in SHIP 13 May-21 G G G G Completed May-21 End of Defects inspections Aug-22 20 C375.146 Bellway Wester Cowden, Dalkeith Wester Cowden, Dalkeith (Bellway) P41165 27 Jul-22 G G G G Practical completion Jul-22 End of defects Jul-23 21 C375.148 Newton Church Road, Danderhall Danderhall, Newton Church Road, former Leisure Centre P43833 23 Feb-24 A A G G Site Investigation completed and report obtained with exception of final gas monitoring. Stage 3 design freeze implemented. Planning application and Stage 1 warrant submitted. Stage 4 progressing Oct-22 Stage 4a Report (based on pre tender estimate) Aug-22 22 C375.149 Barratt - Shawfair Danderhall, Newton Church Road (Barratt) T36399 33 late 24 R R R G Negotiations to agree detailed contract specification almost complete (D&B style contract). Jan-23 Agree costs, D&B Contract and Commence on site End 22 23 C375.150 Barratt - Roslin Expansion Roslin, Moat View Expansion site (Barrat) P43841 53 Jun-23 G G G G Phase 1 Golden Brick payment to go through 18 October. Foundations complete. Oct-22 Progress superstructure Nov-22 Timeline: Barratt advised they are yet to acquire the overall site, awaiting updated programme. Risk: Resource: Timeline: Site start confirmed 14 January 2022. Golden brick stage achieved. Budget: Risk: Resource: Timeline: Site start 25 August 2021 was delayed to March 22 due to delays by contractor securing prices with covid and brexit and value engineering exercise. Now on programme with good progress being made. Budget: Burnbrae Rd Hopefield - Co-Op (excludes Retail unit costs at £702k. NB Costs reported include retail costs. Construction. NB This artificially increases this project's reported cost per unit.) Risk: Resource: Timeline: Completed January 2021 Budget: Risk: Resource: Timeline: Contractor behind programme due to materials and labour supply issues and quality issues resulting in delays to rectify. ASHP's had various issues picked up during final inspections and need rectified. First Handover of 19 homes completed 18 August. 44 handovers completed to date. Remaining handovers of remaining homes now staggered through to end November 22. Budget: Risk: Resource: Timeline: Completed May 21 Budget:. Risk: Timeline: Completed in July 22 Budget: Risk: Resource: Timeline: Stage 3 design freeze implemented in July. Planning submitted. Stage 1 warrant submitted.. Stage 4 progressing. Budget: Initial cost received but this will need updated to reflect recent client change. 23 unit assessment looks confirmed and await latest cost plan update. Risk: Resource: Timeline: Completed. Handed over 28 January 2022. Various defect issues due to lack of post contract response by Bellway all now addressed. End of defects inspections completed. Bellway currently addressing final issues. Tarmac to paths outwith site to be resolved. Budget: Risk: Resource: Timeline: Grouting started on site March 22 now completed with exception of follow-on gas monitoring for 3 months. Main works tenders report draft received and under review. Award likely Oct 22. Standstill period needs to expire before award. 4 weeks mobilisation post award. To avoid starting before Christmas likely start on site Jan 23. Budget: Risk: Stage 1 warrant awaited Resource: Timeline: Contractor has changed plans and have now advised unlikely to start until 2023/24 Budget: Risk: Contractor has changed plans and have now advised unlikely to start until 2023/24 Resource:. Timeline: Enabling works now complete. Main contract awarded. Due to start on site Nov 2022. Budget: Budget now approved to cover returned tender figures. Awarded contract approx. £5.8m below estimated. Risk: Resource: Page 2 of 4Page 220 of 390
Page 221
24 C375.151 Dandara Shawfair Shawfair, Block O, (Dandara) P43840 18 Jan-23 G G G G Foundations completed. Superstructure Block A and B complete, commencement of internal trades. Sprinkler systems installed. Precast stairs installed. Oct-22 Progress superstructure Nov-22 25 C450 Buccleuch St (excludes Retail units) Dalkeith, Buccleuch Street P41733 10 Jan-23 A G G G Foundations complete. Drainage nearing completion. Steel superstructure complete. Timber kit installed but not complete. Aug-22 Wind and Water tight Oct-22 26 C375.153 Newtongrange Library Site Newtongrange St David', former library site P44903, P45588 23 tba G A A G SI completed. Pop-up park completed. RIBA stage 2 report received on library (not housing) Oct-22 Land deal issues to resolve. Report to Council Nov-22 963 Timeline: Started on site Jan 22. Site programme confirmed 12 months. Budget: Risk: Resource: Timeline: Started on site end Nov 21. Start on site delayed 8 months due to retail decision and commercial issues with tenders. Further delay due to Passivhaus. Behind programme by 9 weeks. Extension of time claim from contractor being evaluated. Car Park 6wk extension to initial 47 days granted. Cycle shelter now back in use. Budget: Higher tender prices than anticipated. Buccleuch Street excludes the retail unit costs at £580k. Risk: Resource: Timeline: F&G multi-disciplinary appointed for RIBA stages 1-3. Includes library, pop-up-park and housing development. Ongoing weekly team meetings to progress. Reporting to Council Nov 22 Budget: Utilising site investigations initial reported information and latest budget estimates to report Risk: Feasibility only - full business case to be established Resource: Page 3 of 4Page 221 of 390
Page 222
HOUSING B C D E F G Jun-22 I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z AA AB AC AD AE AF AG Project SHIP References Original Approved Budget £000's Capital OR Feasibility Date/Body Approved Revised Budget Previous Programme Board £000's Date/Body Approval Revised Budget Actual Expenditure To Date Total Forecast Development Cost £000's Expected Variance £000's Number of Units Cost per Unit Approved Risk/Contingency Budget £000's Revised Risk/Contingency Budget £000's Contingency Utilised To Date £000's Remaining Contingency £000's Recommended Contingency £000's Expected Variance £000's Approved External Funding Budget £000's External Funding Received to Date £000's Total Forecast External Funding £000's Expected Variance £000's Programme Projected Practical Completion Date Total £000's Pre 2017 2017/18 £000's 2018/19 £000's 2019/20 £000's 2020/21 £000's 2021/22 £000's 2022/23 £000's 2023/24 £000's 2024/25 £000's 2025/26 £000's Later Years £000's 1000 Current Approved Development Budget Last Report's Final Out-turn (Predicted Final Development Cost) Final Out-turn (Predicted Final Development Cost) C276.3234 Newbyres, Gorebridge Newbyres Crescent, Gorebridge T34262 9,705.57£ Capital Tender Report Dated TBA 12,206.39£ TBA 1,046.00£ 12,206.39£ - 75 162.75£ 490.68£ 0.49£ (491) - 0.00£ 0.00£ finance to do Dec-23 12,207 679 15 82 45 9 100 7,072 3,802 404 - - C276.53 Morris Road, Newtongrange Morris Road, Newtongrange T35727 13,053.92£ 14,429.94£ 11,432.22£ 14,533.94£ 0 79 183.97£ 493.71£ 0.49£ (494) - 0.00£ 0.00£ Jun-22 14,395 - - - - - - 14,350 44 - - - C276.109 Conifer Road Mayfield Conifer Road, Mayfield T35733 17,919.25£ 17,919.25£ 2,187.46£ 17,919.25£ - 72 248.88£ 734.17£ 0.73£ 74 808 0.00£ 0.81-£ Dec-23 16,822 - - - - - 8,594 8,008 220 - - - C375.39 Crichton Avenue Pathhead Completed site - not in SHIP 1,970.28£ 2,183.42£ 1,967.62£ 2,183.42£ - 10 218.34£ 48.67£ 0.05£ (49) - 0.00£ 0.00£ Jul-21 2,183 - - - - - - 2,183 - - - - C375.47 Kirkhill Road, Penicuik Completed site - not in SHIP 4,586.09£ 4,493.09£ 3,868.28£ 4,493.09£ - 21 213.96£ 153.93£ 0.15£ (100) 54 0.00£ 0.05-£ Jan-21 4,493 47 756 488 1,891 712 332 268 - - - - C375.51C Stobhill Road, Gorebridge Completed site - not in SHIP 9,335.81£ project dropped as cost prohibitive 6,097.56£ 1,278.54£ 9,627.44£ 4 25 385.10£ 559.75£ 0.56£ (171) 389 0.00£ 0.39-£ Sep-24 9,627 - - - - 325 564 287 8,144 307 - - C375.110 Clerk Street Loanhead Completed site - not in SHIP 5,324.49£ 5,204.49£ 4,653.46£ 5,211.89£ 0 28 186.14£ 535.49£ 0.54£ (535) - 0.00£ 0.00£ Feb-21 4,653 - - - - 4,653 - - - - - - C398/C375.114 Dundas Highbank - St Marys, Bonnyrigg Bonnyrigg, Polton Street (Complex Care) P41758 22,272.00£ Total Budget includes non HRA Intermediate Care 24,153.50£ 1,334.00£ 13,902.58£ (10) 46 302.23£ 1,673.13£ 1.67£ 626 2,299 0.00£ 2.30-£ Apr-24 25,746 - - - 698 1,626 3,303 14,323 5,541 254 - - C375.115 Castelaw Terrace, Bilston Completed site - not in SHIP 1,407.18£ 1,257.17£ 1,044.22£ 1,257.17£ - 8 157.15£ 44.78£ 0.04£ (45) - 0.00£ 0.00£ Oct-21 1,252 - - - - - 1,044 207 - - - - C375.116 Newmills Road, Dalkeith Newmills Road, Dalkeith T35300 P40873 22,708.91£ 22,708.91£ 11,920.47£ 22,719.09£ 0 92 246.95£ 865.57£ 0.87£ (866) - 0.00£ 0.00£ Dec-22 22,709 - - - - 3,291 9,426 9,426 566 - - - C375.117 Cockpen Terrace, Hopefield Yard Cockpen Terrace, Bonnyrigg T29437 4,839.71£ 4,839.71£ 31.12£ 4,839.71£ - 16 302.48£ 126.00£ 0.13£ (104) 22 0.00£ 0.02-£ Mar-23 3,550 - - - - - - 3,477 73 - - - C375.118 Bellway, Danderhall, Shawfair Completed site - not in SHIP 8,837.00£ 6,887.00£ 5,893.03£ 6,887.00£ - 47 146.53£ 163.00£ 0.16£ (26) 137 0.00£ 0.14-£ Nov-21 6,887 - - 0 3 1,166 5,599 118 - - - - C375.122 Bonnyrigg High St High Street, Bonnyrigg - Phase 1 (Complex Care) P41147 5,678.32£ 6,241.52£ 792.82£ 6,241.52£ - 20 312.08£ 500.00£ 0.50£ - 500 0.00£ 0.50-£ Jun-23 6,242 - - - - - - 3,182 2,987 73 - - C375.128 Mac&Mic, Millerhill, Shawfair Old Craighall Road, Shawfair (Mactaggart & Mickel) P41836 6,443.76£ 6,443.76£ 3.53£ 6,443.76£ - 48 134.25£ 150.00£ 0.15£ - 150 0.00£ 0.15-£ TBC 6,443 - - - - - - 6,437 - 6 - - C375.130(1) NewbaƩle HS (Phase 1), Newtongrange Mayfield, Easthouses Road, former Newbattle High School, Phase 1 P42523 13,053.92£ 36,717.51£ 3,340.51£ 30,730.75£ (6) 70 439.01£ 588.92£ 0.59£ 558 1,147 0.00£ 1.15-£ Jun-24 30,731 - - - - - 5,557 3,156 14,972 6,680 366 - C375.131 Burnbrae Rd Hopefield - Coop Burnbrae Rd, Hopefield P417332 8,477.98£ 7,206.28£ 1,891.80£ 7,206.28£ - 20 360.31£ 331.85£ 0.33£ (44) 287,442 0.00£ 287.44-£ Mar-23 8,478 - - - - - 1,396 6,566 417 100 - - C375.134 Paradykes, Loanhead (Barratts) Completed site - not in SHIP 3,153.00£ 3,552.18£ 2,873.37£ 3,552.18£ - 21 169.15£ -£ -£ - - -£ -£ compl. - C375.140 Dalhousie Mains Dalhousie, Bonnyrigg (Springfield Homes) P43427 12,723.31£ 12,223.31£ 6,438.88£ 12,223.31£ - 70 174.62£ 1,064.93£ 1.06£ (521) 544 0.00£ 0.54-£ Jun-22 12,742 - - - 19 1,763 7,053 3,907 - - - - C375.144 Barratt - Roslin Moat View, Roslin Completed site - not in SHIP 2,096.58£ 2,096.58£ 20.66£ 2,096.58£ - 13 161.28£ 5.00£ 0.01£ - 5 0.00£ 0.00-£ May-21 2,096 - - 0 0 3 2,063 30 - - - - C375.146 Bellway Wester Cowden, Dalkeith Wester Cowden, Dalkeith (Bellway) P41165 3,718.58£ 3,718.58£ 20.91£ 3,718.58£ - 27 137.73£ 5.00£ 0.01£ - 5 0.00£ 0.00-£ Dec-21 3,719 - - - - 3,660 4 55 - - - - C375.148 Newton Chruch Road, Danderhall Danderhall, Newton Church Road, former Leisure Centre P43833 6,130.51£ 6,130.51£ -£ 7,614.98£ 1 24 317.29£ 917.45£ 0.92£ - 917 0.00£ 0.92-£ Apr-23 6,131 - - - - - 22 6,049 60 - - - C375.149 Barratt - Shawfair Danderhall, Newton Church Road (Barratt) T36399 6,655.58£ Barratt advise site on hold - costs tbc -£ -£ 6,655.58£ 7 33 201.68£ 20.00£ 0.02£ - 20 0.00£ 0.02-£ late 23 - - - - - - - - - - - - C375.150 Barratt - Roslin Expansion Roslin, Moat View Expansion site (Barrat) P43841 9,995.29£ 9,995.29£ 47.03£ 9,995.29£ - 53 188.59£ 683.68£ 0.68£ - 684 0.00£ 0.68-£ TBC 11,171 - - - - - 2,681 7,745 745 - - - C375.151 Dandara Shawfair Shawfair, Block O, (Dandara) P43840 3,147.39£ 3,147.39£ 1,416.11£ 3,147.39£ - 18 174.86£ 337.22£ 0.34£ 59 397 0.00£ 0.40-£ Dec-22 3,147 - - - - 3 603 2,082 460 - - - C450 Buccleuch St (excludes Retail units) Dalkeith, Buccleuch Street P41733 3,302.76£ 3,302.76£ 1,308.26£ 3,302.76£ - 10 330.28£ 160.00£ 0.16£ (146) 14 0.00£ 0.01-£ Mar-23 2,994 - - - - 466 2,480 48 - - - - - 0 -£ -£ -£ - 0 -£ - 0 -£ 0 -£ 0 -£ 0 -£ 0 -£ 0 -£ 0 -£ 0 -£ 0 -£ 0 -£ 0 -£ 0 -£ 0 -£ 0 -£ 0 -£ 0 -£ 0 -£ 0 -£ 0 -£ 0 -£ 0 -£ 0 -£ 0 -£ 0 -£ 0 -£ 0 -£ 0 -£ 0 -£ 0 -£ 0 -£ 0 -£ 0 -£ 0 -£ 0 -£ 0 -£ 0 -£ 0 -£ 0 -£ 0 -£ 0 -£ 0 -£ 0 -£ 0 -£ 0 -£ 0 -£ 0 -£ 0 -£ 0 -£ 0 -£ 0 -£ 0 -£ 0 -£ 0 -£ 0 -£ 0 -£ 0 -£ 0 -£ 0 -£ Section 1: Budgets Section 2: Forecast Outturn Expenditure Section 3: Risk & Contingency Section 4: External Funding Secured Section 5: Capital Expenditure Programme Page 4 of 4Page 222 of 390
Page 223
Midlothian Council 13 December 2022 Item 8.7 Midlothian Council Speed Policy Review Report by Kevin Anderson, Executive Director - Place Report for Decision 1 Recommendations It is recommended that Council: • Notes the attached Midlothian Speed Policy Consultation Summary Report; and • Requests the Chief Officer – Place to report further to Council in early 2023 with an Action Plan to implement the appropriate schemes. 2 Purpose of Report The purpose of this report is to inform Council of the public consultation on speed limits to improve road safety and request the production of an action plan to approve implementation of appropriate speed limits across Midlothian, its towns and settlements. Date: 06 December 2022 Report Contact: Derek Oliver, Chief Officer - Place Email: derek.oliver@midlothian.gov.uk Page 223 of 390
Page 224
2 3 Background 3.1 The Midlothian road network needs to support a local transport system that is safe for all road users and improves the quality of life in our communities with the potential to encourage social and economic activity. 3.2 Effective vehicle speed management involves many components designed to encourage, help and require drivers to adopt appropriate and safe speeds. Speed limits are a key source of information and play a fundamental role in indicating the nature of, and risks posed by, a road to both motorised and non-motorised road users. 3.3 Scotland’s National Transport Strategy (NTS2) sets out a vision of the country’s transport system for the next 20 years to address the key challenges we face. There are a number of overarching strategies and delivery plans being produced to support this at a national level, including the Road Safety Framework (2021), together with Regional and Local Transport Strategies. 3.4 To support the aims of these documents, Midlothian Council has undertaken a road safety and hierarchy review of its network which has led to the production of an approved Speed Policy. This sets out the Council’s objectives, guidance which has been used to inform the policies, and how these will be implemented. 3.5 Public consultation on existing speed limits, implementation of 20mph speed restrictions within towns, villages and smaller settlements, and speed limits on higher speeds roads and how these impact road safety and access to active travel, has been undertaken. 3.6 The public consultation was open from 1st November to 29th November to permit a full four week period. This included direct engagement sessions with Council Officers, Community Councils, key stakeholders and Councillors. 3.7 The consultation summary report is appended. 3.8 In order to target and prioritise interventions, assessed on a consistent basis and established baseline, and to allocate budget and funding for necessary infrastructure improvements, an action plan will be devised and presented to Council for approval prior to implementation. 4 Report Implications 4.1 Resource The budget for the public consultation is expected to be met from the Road Safety Improvement Fund. Action Plan outcomes will require capital funding for infrastructure interventions. This will be met through relevant external funding or subject to capital programming. Future Council reports will be required. 4.2 Digital Information on the consultation and approved actions will be displayed on the Council’s website. Page 224 of 390
Page 225
3 4.3 Risk Not implementing a local Speed Policy and consultation outcomes may expose the Council to financial and reputational risk. Approving the recommendations can help to reduce road safety concerns. 4.4 Ensuring Equalities The subject of this report does not have a significant impact on equality. An Equality Impact Assessment will be necessary on the implementation of the action plan and will be factored into future reports. 4.5 Additional Report Implications See Appendix A Appendices Midlothian Council Speed Policy Consultation Summary Report Page 225 of 390
Page 226
4 APPENDIX A – Report Implications A.1 Key Priorities within the Single Midlothian Plan The route map outlines the phases of service recovery and transformation which will underpin the Single Midlothian Plan. A.2 Key Drivers for Change Key drivers addressed in this report: Holistic Working Hub and Spoke Modern Sustainable Transformational Preventative Asset-based Continuous Improvement One size fits one None of the above A.3 Key Delivery Streams Key delivery streams addressed in this report: One Council Working with you, for you Preventative and Sustainable Efficient and Modern Innovative and Ambitious None of the above A.4 Delivering Best Value The report aims to deliver best value. A.5 Involving Communities and Other Stakeholders Extensive public consultation is imperative and has been undertaken as per the Consultation Summary Report. A.6 Impact on Performance and Outcomes The report aims to measure progress through outcomes. A.7 Adopting a Preventative Approach The report is based on the creation of a wellbeing economy which prioritises prevention, fairness for people, the economy and the environment. A.8 Supporting Sustainable Development The improvement and enhancement of our environment. Page 226 of 390
Page 227
Midlothian Speed Policy Consultation Summary Report Midlothian Council Project number: 60668229 1 November 2022 Page 227 of 390
Page 228
Midlothian Speed Policy – Consultation Summary Report Midlothian Council Project number: 60668229 Prepared for: Midlothian Council AECOM Quality information Prepared by Checked by Verified by Approved by Meg Scott Graduate Engineer Leanne Gordon Principal Engineer Leanne Gordon Principal Engineer David McKechnie Regional Director Revision History Revision Revision date Details Authorized Name Position 0 2022-12-02 Issue DMcK David McKechnie Regional Director Distribution List # Hard Copies PDF Required Association / Company Name Page 228 of 390
Page 229
Midlothian Speed Policy – Consultation Summary Report Midlothian Council Project number: 60668229 Prepared for: Midlothian Council AECOM Prepared for: Midlothian Council Prepared by: Meg Scott Graduate Engineer E: meg.scott@aecom.com AECOM Limited 7th Floor, Aurora 120 Bothwell Street Glasgow G2 7JS United Kingdom T: +44 141 248 0300 aecom.com © 2022 AECOM Limited. All Rights Reserved. This document has been prepared by AECOM Limited (“AECOM”) for sole use of our client (the “Client”) in accordance with generally accepted consultancy principles, the budget for fees and the terms of reference agreed between AECOM and the Client. Any information provided by third parties and referred to herein has not been checked or verified by AECOM, unless otherwise expressly stated in the document. No third party may rely upon this document without the prior and express written agreement of AECOM. Page 229 of 390
Page 230
Midlothian Speed Policy – Consultation Summary Report Midlothian Council Project number: 60668229 Prepared for: Midlothian Council AECOM Table of Contents 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 5 1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................................... 5 2. Speed Limit Policy overview ........................................................................................................................ 7 3. Forms of consultation ................................................................................................................................... 9 4. Briefing sessions ........................................................................................................................................ 10 4.1 Community Councils ....................................................................................................................... 10 4.2 Other key stakeholders ................................................................................................................... 11 5. Placecheck online consultation .................................................................................................................. 12 5.1 Key themes ..................................................................................................................................... 12 5.2 Categories by settlement ................................................................................................................ 15 5.3 Most popular comments ................................................................................................................. 18 6. Comments received by email ..................................................................................................................... 19 7. Consultation summary and recommendations ........................................................................................... 20 7.1 Recommendations .......................................................................................................................... 20 7.2 Next steps ....................................................................................................................................... 21 Figures Figure 1.1: Local authority area............................................................................................................................... 5 Figure 5.1: Overview of study area with locations of comments highlighted ......................................................... 12 Tables Table 2.1: Speed limit criteria .................................................................................................................................. 7 Table 5.1: Description of categories ...................................................................................................................... 13 Table 5.2: Breakdown of comments by category ................................................................................................... 13 Table 5.3: Primary themes .................................................................................................................................... 14 Table 5.4: Breakdown of categories of comments by settlement .......................................................................... 16 Table 5.5: Most popular comments ....................................................................................................................... 18 Table 6.1: Email comment categories ................................................................................................................... 19 Table 7.1: Placecheck - Most frequent themes and settlements where they were most often raised .................... 20 Page 230 of 390
Page 231
Midlothian Speed Policy – Consultation Summary Report Midlothian Council Project number: 60668229 Prepared for: Midlothian Council AECOM 5 1. Introduction A new Speed Policy was approved for implementation by Midlothian Council in June 2022. Consultation was held on the Speed Policy and the implementation of it between 1 November 2022 and 29 November 2022. This report summarises the consultation that was undertaken and provides recommendations on how Midlothian Council could proceed. 1.1 Background In late 2021 / early 2022, AECOM undertook a review - at the request of Midlothian Council - of the hierarchy of the road network within the local authority area, as shown bounded by orange in Figure 1.1 below: Figure 1.1: Local authority area Source: © OpenStreetMap contributors This study examined the different types of roads within the existing road network, with a view to better understanding their suitability for purpose within a local authority that has seen significant population growth and development in recent years. Following on from the Roads Hierarchy Review, AECOM produced a draft Speed Policy document (‘the Policy’) for review by Midlothian Council. This set out Midlothian Council’s objectives in relation to speed limits, as well as outlining the guidance used to determine the policy and methods which could be used for implementing the Policy. This was approved for implementation in June 2022. Page 231 of 390
Page 232
Midlothian Speed Policy – Consultation Summary Report Midlothian Council Project number: 60668229 Prepared for: Midlothian Council AECOM 6 The Midlothian Speed Limit Policy seeks to provide some clarity as to what comprises an appropriate speed for various types of roads, and the environment in which they traverse through. The remainder of this report is structured as follows: • Section 2 –Speed Limit Policy overview In section 2 of this report, further background on the Speed Limit Policy is provided. • Section 3 – Forms of consultation The methods that were utilised to engage with local residents, groups and stakeholders are presented in section 3. • Section 4 – Briefing sessions Section 4 contains detail on the various briefing sessions that were undertaken with Community Councils, and other key stakeholders. • Section 5 – Placecheck online consultation The comments that were received through the Placecheck online consultation are detailed and explained in section 5. • Section 6 – Feedback received by letter, email and Live Chat Section 6 summarises the comments that were received through the project email address (midlothianspeedpolicy@aecom.com). • Section 7 – Consultation summary The final section of the report provides a summary of the consultation and the actions that will be taken forward. Page 232 of 390
Page 233
Midlothian Speed Policy – Consultation Summary Report Midlothian Council Project number: 60668229 Prepared for: Midlothian Council AECOM 7 2. Speed Limit Policy overview The setting of national speed limits for different road types is the responsibility of the UK Government. The three national speed limits for cars, motorcycles and light vans are: • The 30mph speed limit on restricted roads (in Scotland Class A, B or C or unclassified roads with street lighting). • The speed limit of 60mph on single carriageway roads. • The 70mph limit on dual carriageways and motorways. These national limits are not, however, appropriate for all roads. The responsibility for determining local speed limits lies with the Roads Authorities, having regard to guidance issued by the Scottish Government together with relevant advice from the Department for Transport (DfT). The setting of speed limits can be a sensitive issue for communities as residents and businesses can have conflicting views dependent upon their own experiences and how they primarily use the road space. As such, the Midlothian Speed Limit Policy seeks to provide some clarity as to what comprises an appropriate speed for various types of roads, and the environment in which the traverse through. The Midlothian road network needs to support a local transport system that is safe for all road users and improves the quality of life in the communities that make up the council area, with the potential to encourage social and economic activity. Scotland’s Road Safety Framework to 2030 states that Speed limits in a Safe System are based on aiding crash- avoidance and reducing the speed at which impacts occur. The Safe System aims to establish appropriate speed limits according to the feature of the road, the function it serves, and the physical tolerance of those who use it. Table 2.1 outlines the criteria for determining the speed limit in towns, villages and small settlements. Table 2.1: Speed limit criteria Speed Limit Implementation Criteria Towns 20mph • a clearly defined core, such as a central shopping area or community facility; • several facilities generating active travel movements; • notable development depth; • almost continuous frontage; • numerous junctions; and, • significant pedestrian activity throughout the day. 30mph • demonstrate the same criteria as above • can be considered where motor vehicle movement is given higher priority than the place function of the street 40mph • generally situated on the outskirts of urban areas with little frontage development and where there is limited residential development or the presence of vulnerable road users • may be used as intermediate speed limits (“buffers”) on approach to built-up areas where a lower speed limit may apply Villages and Smaller Settlements 40mph • there are more than 10 houses directly fronting the road (on one or both sides); and • there is a minimum density of 3 houses every 100m; and • there is a community facility such as a school, shop or village hall within the settlement. 30mph • demonstrates the same criteria as for 40mph; and • there are more than 15 houses directly fronting the road (on one or both sides). 20mph • demonstrates the same criteria as for 30mph; and • there are more than 20 houses directly fronting the road (on one or both sides); and • there is street lighting no more than 38m apart; and • there is a continuous footway along at least one side. Page 233 of 390
Page 234
Midlothian Speed Policy – Consultation Summary Report Midlothian Council Project number: 60668229 Prepared for: Midlothian Council AECOM 8 Rural Roads 60mph (single) 70mph (dual) • speed limits on rural roads will be considered on a case-by-case basis, taking account of factors such as collision history and road character before adopting a lower speed limit • rural roads with high speeds must have a 40mph ‘buffer’ or other visual marker to alert drivers to an upcoming settlement • where appropriate, Midlothian Council will consider the implementation of ‘Quiet Routes’, where road users are encouraged to share the space, rather than priority being given to motor vehicles. Characteristics for these routes include: • Daily traffic volumes of less than 800 vehicles per day (two-way); • Carriageway no greater than 5.5 metres wide; • Routes already used by pedestrians, cyclists and equestrians; • Routes provide a link to existing infrastructure; and • Has the support of the community, emergency services and elected members. In cognisance of the complexities associated with setting speed limits, the criteria contained within the table is not intended to be implemented as a blanket policy. Decisions regarding speed limits will be made on a case-by-case basis, taking account of the many factors affecting speed and road safety. This will be of particular significance on rural roads which are less readily assigned to categories than urban roads and, as such, there will likely be roads where speed limits lower than the national speed limit will be implemented to account for local factors e.g., to facilitate active travel. There will be locations where drivers’ speeds are too high for the prevailing local environment and further intervention is required to achieve good compliance with the existing or a lower speed limit. Speed management measures include: • Raising awareness; ─ education; ─ promotion. • Enforcement; ─ regulatory signage; ─ police enforcement. • Engineering; ─ Visual/audible alterations including road markings, rumble strips, gateway features and vehicle activated signage; ─ Physical alterations to the road layout including road narrowing, ‘Give and Go’ chicanes, speed cushions/road humps and raised tables; ─ Additional active travel infrastructure including cycle lanes, widened footways and pedestrian refuge islands. Page 234 of 390
Page 235
Midlothian Speed Policy – Consultation Summary Report Midlothian Council Project number: 60668229 Prepared for: Midlothian Council AECOM 9 3. Forms of consultation The following forms of consultation were used during this consultation: Email notifications ✓ Elected Members, Community Councils and key stakeholders were notified of the project by email and issued a briefing note. Briefing session with Community Councils ✓ A briefing session was held with representatives from Community Councils on 22 November. Briefing session with key stakeholders ✓ A briefing session was held with key stakeholders on 23 November. Midlothian Council website ✓ An article was hosted on Midlothian Council’s website explaining the consultation and how people can comment. Links were provided to the consultation briefing note, the Midlothian Council Speed Limit Policy and the Midlothian Roads Hierarchy Review. Placecheck online consultation ✓ A Placecheck map was available for interested people to leave comments. Comments could be left on the map between 01/11/22 and 29/11/22 (inclusive). Dedicated email inbox ✓ A dedicated email inbox (midlothianspeedpolicy@aecom.com) was created, which interested people could use to leave comments and communicate with the project team. A total of 50 emails were received from individuals / organisations. Social media ✓ Social media posts were created on Facebook and Twitter using Midlothian Council’s accounts. Respondents to the consultation were invited to feedback comments related to the Speed Limit Policy, with particular focus on the following elements: • existing speed limits in your local area; • implementation of 20mph speed limits in towns, villages and smaller settlements; and • speed limits on higher speeds roads and how these impact road safety and access to active travel. Details on the outcome of the various engagement methods are detailed in sections 4 to 6. Page 235 of 390
Page 236
Midlothian Speed Policy – Consultation Summary Report Midlothian Council Project number: 60668229 Prepared for: Midlothian Council AECOM 10 4. Briefing sessions This section gathers and summarises feedback from the engagement activities with Community Councils and key stakeholders. This does not include comments added to the Placecheck map or received to the dedicated email inbox. These are analysed separately in section 5 and 6 respectively. The purpose of these sessions was to brief the individuals / groups on the project, discuss the project briefing note that they had been issued and to respond to any questions that they had. 4.1 Community Councils The meeting with Community Councils was held on 22 November from 7.00 pm to 8.15 pm, with the meeting being held via a Microsoft Teams meeting. Each of the Community Councils in Midlothian were invited to the session. The session was attended by eleven representatives. A summary of the key points that were raised at the meeting is presented below: • Several attendees made comments regarding the other benefits of speed reduction, such as reduced noise and improved quality of living; • Several comments highlighted that enforcement and promotion are much less effective than engineering measures; • Traffic calming measures were discussed, and it was highlighted that Midlothian Council have a preferred form of road hump and that raised tables can bring benefits that other forms of traffic calming do not; • It was highlighted that the fact that, as per the Speed Limit Policy, some of the criteria for a 20mph speed limit in a town require active travel / pedestrian activity and that some areas may not meet this because the existing vehicle speeds or volumes may active travel feel unsafe. There is therefore potential for a latent demand, which may not initially be apparent; • The process for requesting a change in speed limit was highlighted, and it was noted that it needs to be clear to whom / which email address the request needs to be directed; • Several attendees raised comments questioning whether the opinion of local people would be given more weight than those just passing through; • Question of consistency was raised, including consistency with neighbouring local authorities and within Midlothian itself. Following the meeting, Roslin & Bilston Community Council (R&BCC) and Loanhead & District Community Council (L&DCC) provided written responses to the consultation. These are summarised below: R&BCC • R&BCC expressed a desire to see air pollution, noise pollution and ground vibration considered in the Speed Limit Policy; • It was highlighted that traffic calming measures can impact on surrounding properties, and that this should be considered when selecting traffic calming measures; • R&BCC expressed a desire to see blanket 20mph speed limits in built up areas, except where it is demonstrated that some other limit would be more appropriate for a particular road. They also stated that any trial and monitoring of reduced speed limits in specific areas would lead to unacceptable delays; • R&BCC highlighted their belief that Bilston and Roslin should have speed limits of 20mph and provided evidence to support their case. They also requested that the B7006 between Bilston and Roslin and the B7003 should be considered for a lower speed limit. L&DCC • L&DCC have a preference for signage, road markings and vehicle activated signage rather than vertical traffic calming features. Page 236 of 390
Page 237
Midlothian Speed Policy – Consultation Summary Report Midlothian Council Project number: 60668229 Prepared for: Midlothian Council AECOM 11 • Requested that the following streets be considered for 20mph speed limit: ─ Foundry Lane; ─ Hunter Avenue; ─ Mayburn Bridge; ─ Mayburn Terrace; ─ Hawthorn Gardens; ─ Fountain Place; ─ Clerk Street; ─ Nivensknowe Road; and ─ The Loan; and High Street to Braeside Road junction. • Requested that the following streets be signed as 30mph: ─ Loanhead Road, from McDonalds Roundabout to Mayburn Bridge; and ─ Edgefield Relief Road. 4.2 Other key stakeholders A meeting with other individuals / groups identified as key stakeholders was held on 23 November from 3.30 pm to 4.15 pm via a Microsoft Teams meeting. Over 12 organisations were invited to the meeting, however only representatives from Lothian Buses and Spokes attended. A summary of the key points that were raised at the meeting is presented below: • It was noted that the criteria for Quiet Routes require existing use by walkers, cyclists and equestrians, and it was highlighted that reduced speed limits could encourage more use by cyclists. • It was highlighted that there are a number of routes between towns that people are discouraged from cycling on due to the current high speed limits. If speed limits between towns could be reduced, it could make cycling more attractive. An example that was provided was between Bonnyrigg and Pathhead. Following the meeting, Mobility and Access Committee Scotland (MACS) and Lothian Buses provided email responses. These are summarised below: MACS • Highlighted common problems for people with mobility impairments and useful resources; and • Highlighted the likely requirement for an Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) on the Policy. Lothian Buses • Requested that public transport operators be consulted prior to the draft TRO stage; • Highlighted the impact on bus journey times and possible knock on effects on routes and frequencies; and • Highlighted that it is important to take cognisance of public transport when considering traffic calming measures. Page 237 of 390
Page 238
Midlothian Speed Policy – Consultation Summary Report Midlothian Council Project number: 60668229 Prepared for: Midlothian Council AECOM 12 5. Placecheck online consultation There were 990 comments added to the Placecheck map, which was live for a period of 4 weeks from Tuesday 1st November to Tuesday 29th November 2022. The responses are summarised in sections 5.1 to 5.3. An image of the Placecheck map can be found below: Figure 5.1: Overview of study area with locations of comments highlighted 5.1 Key themes As mentioned above, 990 comments were submitted to the Placecheck map. Each comment was assigned a category based on its content. The ten categories that were assigned are presented in Table 5.1. It should be noted that comments could be assigned more than one category. Page 238 of 390
Page 239
Midlothian Speed Policy – Consultation Summary Report Midlothian Council Project number: 60668229 Prepared for: Midlothian Council AECOM 13 Table 5.1: Description of categories Category Description 1. Comment on Speed Policy Comments on the Midlothian Speed Policy 2. General comment about speed limits Comments regarding speed limits generally, for example suggesting that 20mph speed limits should be implemented in all towns and villages or suggesting that reduced speed limits are not required at all 3. Concern about reduced speed limit Comments regarding concerns about the impact of reduced speed limits 4. Existing speed limit Comments on existing speed limits, typically related to requests for increases to existing speed limits 5. Speed / Traffic calming improvements required Comments noting that a reduced speed limit, traffic calming, or enforcement measures being required 6. Road safety issue Comments noting a road safety issue, such as speeding traffic, constrained visibility, dangerous junctions or standing water / flooding. It should be noted that some of these comments were unrelated to the Speed Limit Policy 7. Support for existing measures Comments expressing support for existing measures, such as 20mph speed limits and improved pedestrian infrastructure 8. Improvements required (other) Comments that noted that improvements such as improved cycle infrastructure, new or improved traffic signals, and improved junctions being required. 9. Not related (local issue) Local issues such as fouling, congestion or local driver behaviour 10. Not related (reference to previous consultation) Comments that relate to a previous consultation A breakdown of comments by category is provided in Table 5.2: Table 5.2: Breakdown of comments by category Category No. Speed / Traffic calming improvements required 369 Road safety issue 299 Improvements required (other) 221 Not related (local issue) 49 Existing speed limit 25 Support for existing measures 15 General comment about speed limits 10 Concern about reduced speed limit 2 Not related (reference to previous consultation) 1 Speed Policy 1 Within each category, comments were also assigned themes. Comments could be given a maximum of four themes, depending on their content. The comment themes that appeared most frequently are detailed in Table 5.3. Page 239 of 390
Page 240
Midlothian Speed Policy – Consultation Summary Report Midlothian Council Project number: 60668229 Prepared for: Midlothian Council AECOM 14 Table 5.3: Primary themes Theme No. Speed / Traffic calming improvements required - 20mph speed limit required 150 Road safety issue - Speeding 136 Speed / Traffic calming improvements required - Traffic calming measures required 135 Improvements required (other) - Improved pedestrian infrastructure 42 Road safety issue - Parking restrictions required 34 Reduced speed limit required 31 Road safety issue - Constrained visibility 31 Improvements required (other) - Improved cycle infrastructure 26 Improvements required (other) - Carriageway surfacing 24 Further detail regarding the three themes that were most frequently raised is provided below: • Comments in which 20mph speed limits were most frequently requested on Placecheck were found in Eskbank (27 comments), Roslin (20), Pathhead (16), and Bonnyrigg (12). Taking account of comments that were upvoted and downvoted, 20mph speed limits were most frequently requested in Roslin (175 votes), Eskbank (122 votes), Pathhead (104 votes), Auchendinny (59 votes), and Dewartown (56 votes). 1 • Speeding was reported throughout Midlothian, but particularly in comments in Eskbank (mentioned in 16 comments), Roslin and Gorebridge (both 13) and Bonnyrigg (10). Taking account of comments that were upvoted and downvoted, speeding was raised most frequently in Pathhead (106 votes), Roslin (99 votes), Eskbank (90 votes), and Gorebridge (40 votes). • Comments in which traffic calming measures were most frequently requested on Placecheck were found in Dalkeith (18 comments), Roslin (17), Gorebridge (15), and Penicuik (9). Taking account of comments that were upvoted and downvoted, traffic calming was most frequently requested in Roslin (64 votes), Dewartown (60), Edgehead (54 votes), Gorebridge (49 votes). Note that the figures given in the bullet points above may refer to a specific area and not necessarily to the settlement as a whole. Regarding active travel, a variety of pedestrian improvements were requested. ‘Pedestrian improvements’ consisted of the following themes: • Alteration to existing controlled pedestrian crossing; • Controlled pedestrian crossing required; • Dropped kerb; • Improved pedestrian infrastructure; • Improved pedestrian route required; • New footway required; • Effective width of footway narrowed by vegetation / other; and • Unsafe pedestrian route. Pedestrian improvements were most frequently requested in Roslin (46), Edgehead (29), Eskbank (29) and Loanhead (26). 1 To account for the upvoting and downvoting of comments, each comment was assigned a net voting total (based on the number of upvotes minus the number of downvotes) Page 240 of 390
Page 241
Midlothian Speed Policy – Consultation Summary Report Midlothian Council Project number: 60668229 Prepared for: Midlothian Council AECOM 15 A variety of cycle improvements were also requested. ‘Cycle improvements’ consisted of the following themes: • Advanced green for cyclists required; • Improved cycle infrastructure; • Improved cycle route; • Cycle conditions; and • Inconsistent provision of cycle infrastructure. Cycle improvements were most frequently requested in Eskbank (14) and Dalkeith (12). 5.2 Categories by settlement A breakdown of the categories of comments received by settlement is shown in Table 5.4. Page 241 of 390
Page 242
Midlothian Speed Policy – Consultation Summary Report Midlothian Council Project number: 60668229 Prepared for: Midlothian Council AECOM 16 Table 5.4: Breakdown of categories of comments by settlement Category Total Settlement Concern about reduced speed limit Existing speed limit General comment about speed limits Improvements required (other) Not related (local issue) Road safety issue Speed / Traffic calming improvements required Speed Policy Support for existing measures Arniston Engine 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 Auchendinny 0 0 0 6 0 2 8 0 1 17 Bilston 0 0 0 3 0 1 2 0 0 6 Bonnyrigg 0 4 0 11 4 14 21 0 1 55 Bush and Flotterstone 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 Bush Estate 0 0 0 0 0 4 2 0 1 7 Carrington 0 0 0 2 0 0 2 0 0 4 Cousland 0 0 0 2 2 7 16 0 0 27 Crichton 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Dalhousie 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 0 0 4 Dalhousie Castle 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 Dalkeith 0 2 0 17 7 18 30 0 0 74 Dewartown 0 0 0 4 1 2 9 0 0 16 Easter Howgate 0 0 0 2 0 1 3 0 0 6 Easthouses 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 2 Edgehead 0 0 0 4 0 9 10 0 2 25 Eskbank 0 0 0 22 2 22 36 0 1 83 Flotterstone 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Ford 0 0 0 2 0 6 7 0 0 15 General 1 1 8 0 0 0 2 1 0 13 Gorebridge 0 1 0 13 6 30 24 0 0 74 Gowkshill 0 0 0 1 0 3 2 0 0 6 Hillend 0 0 0 3 0 2 2 0 0 7 Howgate 0 1 1 1 0 5 12 0 0 20 Lasswade 0 0 0 9 1 12 10 0 0 32 Leadburn 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 3 Loanhead 0 0 0 18 7 23 13 0 2 63 Page 242 of 390
Page 243
Midlothian Speed Policy – Consultation Summary Report Midlothian Council Project number: 60668229 Prepared for: Midlothian Council AECOM 17 Category Total Settlement Concern about reduced speed limit Existing speed limit General comment about speed limits Improvements required (other) Not related (local issue) Road safety issue Speed / Traffic calming improvements required Speed Policy Support for existing measures Lothian Bridge 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 0 4 Melville 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 2 Newbattle 0 0 0 3 0 4 2 0 0 9 Newlandrig 0 0 0 2 0 3 4 0 0 9 Newtongrange 0 0 0 4 2 7 6 0 2 21 North Middleton 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 2 Oxenfoord Equestrian Centre 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 Pathhead 1 3 0 7 3 19 25 0 2 60 Penicuik 0 2 0 11 0 21 30 0 0 64 Polton 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Rosewell 0 0 0 5 0 5 4 0 1 15 Roslin 0 1 1 13 5 22 38 0 0 80 Straiton 0 0 0 5 1 0 1 0 0 7 Temple 0 0 0 6 1 2 2 0 0 11 Tynehead 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Westloch 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 2 Whitehill 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 4 Page 243 of 390
Page 244
Midlothian Speed Policy – Consultation Summary Report Midlothian Council Project number: 60668229 Prepared for: Midlothian Council AECOM 18 5.3 Most popular comments As previously mentioned, respondents had the opportunity to upvote or downvote comments. The most popular comments – those that received the most upvotes – are presented in Table 5.5. Table 5.5: Most popular comments Topic Street Location No. of up votes Road has become a cut through to the bypass from Gorebridge. Reducing speed limit to 20mph will help however also need traffic calming measures to reduce speed of cars and lorries B6372 Dewartown 24 This is a busy junction off the a68. It leads off in the direction of a primary school and nursery. Would benefit from traffic lights/improved junction. Soon new houses will be built in the area and accessed via so will become more used. Junction of A68, B6367 and Hill Road Pathhead 22 Vehicles travel far too fast through the village, especially worrying near the school with the narrow pavements. A 20 mph zone would be greatly appreciated B7006 Roslin 20 This is at Oxenfoord Home Farm. There are three homes here and a busy livery yard. We have 30 horses in fields on the opposite side of the road to the farm steading and these come in and out every day - some with minors. It can be difficult to cross due to the speed of traffic, vehicles appear very quickly when crossing - clear when you start to cross. Crossings used from 6am - 10pm so often dark as well. Would appreciate if the speed limit could be reduced on this section of road. Happy to discuss or provide further information. Our walls on either side of the road have been damaged numerous times with cars loosing control (sic). Thanks B6372 Oxenfoord Equestrian Centre 19 This is an incredibly dangerous road, with people driving wrecklessly (sic) on it on a daily basis. Should be reduced to a 20 to protect everyone using the road. B7003 Roslin 18 Page 244 of 390
Page 245
Midlothian Speed Policy – Consultation Summary Report Midlothian Council Project number: 60668229 Prepared for: Midlothian Council AECOM 19 6. Comments received by email Comments that were received via email have been summarised below. A total of 50 emails were received to the dedicated email inbox (midlothianspeedpolicy@aecom.com). The comments that were received were categorised. Categories that were raised more than once are shown in Table 6.1 below. It should be noted that emails that were sent on behalf of Community Councils or key stakeholders (described in section 4) have been omitted from the analysis below to prevent double counting. Table 6.1: Email comment categories Category No. Speed limit reduction request 19 Request for traffic calming / enforcement 7 Negative impact of reduced speed limits 4 Support for 20mph in towns and villages 4 Problem area 3 Specific request for Council 3 Comment on Speed Limit Policy 2 Complaint about structure of consultation 2 Complaint about usability of Placecheck 2 Enforcement required 2 Money should be spent elsewhere 2 Query regarding consultation 2 Specific query for Council 2 Speeding 2 Of the 19 requests for reduced speed limits, 4 of these were for Roslin, 3 were in Dewartown, 3 were for Pathhead, 2 were for Bonnyrigg, 2 were for Dalkeith, and there was one each for the B6372, Eskbank, Middleton, Newtongrange, and Rosewell. Of the seven requests for traffic calming / enforcement, three were in Dewartown, two were in Pathhead (one generally and one on Crichton Road), one was in Newtongrange (in the “lanes at top of streets”) and one was on the B6372 at Oxenfoord Livery. Three of the four comments that referenced negative impacts of reduced speed limits linked to Daily Mail articles on 20mph speed limits, with one highlighting that it could cause more pollution as, in their words, “engines need to work more”. Page 245 of 390
Page 246
Midlothian Speed Policy – Consultation Summary Report Midlothian Council Project number: 60668229 Prepared for: Midlothian Council AECOM 20 7. Consultation summary and recommendations This report has summarised the consultation that was undertaken on Midlothian Council’s Speed Policy and the implementation of it between 1 November and 29 November 2022. Respondents were invited to provide comments on the Speed Limit Policy, with particular focus on the following elements: • existing speed limits in their local area; • implementation of 20mph speed limits in towns, villages and smaller settlements; and • speed limits on higher speeds roads and how these impact road safety and access to active travel. Interested parties were given a variety of ways to respond, including by electronic correspondence and by submitting comments to a dedicated project Placecheck tool. Briefing sessions were held with Midlothian Council officers, representatives from Community Councils, and key stakeholders and local groups. Community Councils were found to be supportive of reduced speed limits. Feedback and queries were received from them on a variety of issues, including about traffic calming measures, specific aspects of the Policy and the requirement (or otherwise) for consistency. Regarding key stakeholders, feedback was received from Spokes, Lothian Buses and Mobility and Access Committee Scotland (MACS). Spokes highlighted the desire of their members to see reduced speed limits between settlements in Midlothian and provided feedback on the Quiet Route criteria within the Policy, noting that reduced speed limits could encourage more use by cyclists where there is little current use. Lothian Buses requested that public transport operators be consulted prior to the draft TRO stage, highlighted the possible impact of reduced speed limits and traffic calming on bus journey times and possible knock on effects on routes and frequencies, and highlighted that it is important to take cognisance of public transport when considering traffic calming measures. MACS highlighted common problems for people with mobility impairments and useful resources, and noted the likely requirement for an Equality Impact Assessment on the Policy. A total of 990 comments were received via the Placecheck tool, with a total of 50 emails being received. The most common themes that were raised on Placecheck were regarding requests for 20mph speed limits, locations where vehicles are speeding and requests for traffic calming. Table 7.1 presents where the settlements where these themes were most frequently raised: Table 7.1: Placecheck - Most frequent themes and settlements where they were most often raised 20mph speed limit required Speeding Traffic calming measures required Roslin (175 votes) Eskbank (122 votes) Pathhead (104 votes) Auchendinny (59 votes) Dewartown (56 votes) Pathhead (106 votes) Roslin (99 votes) Eskbank (90 votes) Gorebridge (40 votes) Roslin (64 votes) Dewartown (60) Edgehead (54 votes) Gorebridge (49 votes) Regarding the emails that were received, the most common themes were: Speed limit reduction request (raised 19 times), request for traffic calming / enforcement (7), negative impact of reduced speed limits (4) and support for 20mph in towns and villages (4). 7.1 Recommendations Recommendations associated with the primary areas that respondents were asked to provide feedback on (the Speed Limit Policy; existing speed limits in their area, implementation of 20mph speed limits in towns, villages Page 246 of 390
Page 247
Midlothian Speed Policy – Consultation Summary Report Midlothian Council Project number: 60668229 Prepared for: Midlothian Council AECOM 21 and smaller settlements; and speed limits on higher speeds roads and how these impact road safety and access to active travel) are provided below: Speed Limit Policy With regards to the Speed Limit Policy, the following measures are recommended: • Consider revising the criteria for 20mph speed limits in towns and for Quiet Routes to account for latent demand; • Consider consulting public transport operators (and other statutory consultees) prior to consulting on Traffic Regulation Orders; • Clarify to whom / which email address a request for a speed limit change needs to be directed (section 5.3) of the Policy; • Undertake an Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) on the Policy, if one has not already been completed. Speed limits in towns, villages and smaller settlements As detailed in Table 7.1, 20mph speed limits were frequently requested in several smaller settlements within Midlothian. If the Council’s preferred approach is to investigate the introduction of 20mph speed limits in tranches rather than all at once, it is recommended that Roslin, Eskbank, Pathhead, Auchendinny, and Dewartown are considered in the first tranche. Loanhead and Bilston could also be investigated as part of the first tranche, given the support of the respective local Community Councils. Requests for 20mph speed limits in other locations were made less frequently, however it is recommended that these are appropriately investigated at the appropriate time (including if a request is made by the local community, in line with Midlothian’s Policy). Requests for other reduced speed limits (for example 30mph or 40mph) were also made less frequently. It is also recommended that these are investigated at the appropriate time, for example, during the next review of speed limits. Speed limits on higher speed roads and active travel As for speed limits in towns, villages and smaller settlements, requests for speed limits on higher speed roads were made less frequently. It is also recommended that these are investigated at the appropriate time, for example, during the next review of speed limits. Regarding active travel on higher speed roads, no strong trends emerged in the data. Many potential improvements in more urban locations were raised and these could be investigated as and when funding is available. 7.2 Next steps The consultation report and data will be provided to Midlothian Council for consideration by Elected Members to determine potential schemes to be taken forward. Page 247 of 390
Page 248
Midlothian Speed Policy – Consultation Summary Report Midlothian Council Project number: 60668229 Prepared for: Midlothian Council AECOM 22 aecom.com Page 248 of 390
Page 249
Midlothian Council 13 December 2022 Item 8.8 Tenants Satisfaction Survey Outcomes Report by Derek Oliver – Chief Officer Report for Information 1 Recommendations Provide an update on the outcomes of the Tenants Satisfaction Survey completed during 2022. 2 Purpose of Report/Executive Summary 2.1 As part of Midlothian Council’s Tenant Participation and Customer Engagement Strategy, Midlothian Council undertakes periodic surveys to determine the level of tenant satisfaction with Housing Services provided by the Council. Midlothian Council’s Housing Services carried out a face-to-face tenant satisfaction survey during September 2022. 2.2 All Registered Social Landlords in Scotland need to ask tenants some specific questions the results of which are reported on an annual basis as part of the Annual Return on the Social Housing Charter. This enables comparison between Registered Social Landlords on a range of indicators of performance. In addition to this, further questions were asked which were judged to be useful in finding out more about our tenants and their priorities. 2.3 Council Officers consulted the Midlothian Tenants Panel and tenants groups to consider their views about the questions being asked in the Survey prior to the final questions being agreed. Date Report Contact: Name Hazel Thompson Hazel.Thompson@midlothian.gov.uk Page 249 of 390
Page 250
2 3 Background/Main Body of Report 3.1 The overall objectives of the survey were to: • Gain an understanding of the level of customer satisfaction with the housing service. • Identify areas of strength and weakness in relation to specific service areas. • Provide evidence on performance to the Scottish Housing Regulator. • Undertake comparative analysis with previous surveys and other local authority landlords. 3.2 This report contains in Appendix B provides key information derived from the Survey, including: • Information about Council tenants and their tenancies. • Satisfaction levels with the quality of homes and neighbourhoods. • Satisfaction with the repairs service. • How tenants communicate with the Council. • Overall level of satisfaction with service provided. 3.3 The survey was carried out by Knowledge Partnership - an experienced research company who have undertaken Tenant Satisfaction Surveys for a significant number of Scottish Councils (including Midlothian Council) and Registered Social Landlords. 3.4 In total 750 interviews were conducted; approximately a 10% sample of Midlothian Council tenants. The sample was drawn to be representative of the number of council properties in each area whilst also ensuring that the views of tenants in some of the smaller settlements were also represented. 3.5 Overall satisfaction • 81.5% of Council tenants are satisfied with services overall in 2022 whilst 11.7% are dissatisfied. • In 2019, 84.4% of tenants were satisfied overall whilst the Scottish council social housing average is currently 79.6%3. • Overall tenant satisfaction by property style illustrates some degree of variation, 92.1% of tenants living in amenity homes are satisfied overall, which contrasts with the views of those living in four in a block, where 77.8% are satisfied overall. • Tenant satisfaction by household size and composition shows that smaller households (86.5% satisfied), and those who do not have children at home (83.1%) tend to be more satisfied overall Page 250 of 390
Page 251
3 than larger households (78.2% satisfied), and those that do have children in the home (76.5%). • The most positive tenants in terms of overall satisfaction are those who are aged 65 plus (89.9% satisfied), tenants who are retired (89.9%), or those who receive full rent payment (84.5%). Conversely, the tenants who are least satisfied include younger tenants e.g., those aged 16-34 (76.6% satisfied) or tenants who are ‘other not working’4 (69.7%). 3.5.1 Although we cannot say for certain that this scenario applies to the Council’s result for overall satisfaction, Knowledge Partnership observed in other recent tenant satisfaction surveys that a tenant’s experience of service delivery and support during lockdown has a bearing on how they respond to the question of overall satisfaction i.e. where the tenant said they were satisfied with lockdown service delivery/support, an above average proportion of these tenants were also satisfied with housing services overall; the opposite applies in the case of tenants who were dissatisfied with services and support during lockdown. This lockdown effect may be one explanation for the 3% point reduction in the Council’s overall satisfaction figure compared to 2019. 3.6 Next Steps 3.6.1 Of the 750 tenants who participated in the survey 70 have indicated they would like to take part in follow up focus groups. These focus groups will be delivered by Knowledge Partnership and complete by end of 2022. 3.6.2 The focus groups will focus on two key themes captured from the survey results. • How tenants can work with the Council to assist in the improvement of areas of the repair services, to improve overall customer satisfaction levels. • Further steps can be explored to improve customer satisfaction levels to ensure tenants feel more informed about their services and also have the opportunity to participate in the future development and delivery of these services. Following completion of the focus groups feedback will be compiled and shared with the Council to help inform future service delivery. 4 Report Implications (Resource, Digital and Risk) 4.1 Resource There are no resource implications within this Report. 4.2 Digital Page 251 of 390
Page 252
4 There are no digital implications within this Report 4.3 Risk It is a statutory requirement that Midlothian Council undertake Tenant Satisfaction Surveys to monitor the level of satisfaction with its Services. 4.4 Ensuring Equalities (if required a separate IIA must be completed) Tenant Satisfaction Survey provides useful information in relation to equality groups in order to assist in the development of future services, policies and procedures. 4.5 Additional Report Implications (See Appendix A) See Appendix A Appendices Appendix A – Report Implications Appendix B – Tenants Satisfaction Survey Page 252 of 390
Page 253
5 APPENDIX A – Report Implications A.1 Key Priorities within the Single Midlothian Plan Midlothian Council and its Community Planning Partners have made a commitment to treat the following areas as key priorities under the Single Midlothian Plan: Reducing the gap in learning outcomes Reducing the gap in health outcomes Reducing the gap in economic circumstances The themes addressed in this report impact on the delivery of the Single Midlothian Plan outcome measures in stable and balanced communities. A.2 Key Drivers for Change Key drivers addressed in this report: Holistic Working Hub and Spoke Modern Sustainable Transformational Preventative Asset-based Continuous Improvement One size fits one None of the above A.3 Key Delivery Streams Key delivery streams addressed in this report: One Council Working with you, for you Preventative and Sustainable Efficient and Modern Innovative and Ambitious None of the above A.4 Delivering Best Value Assist in the development of future services, policies and procedures. A.5 Involving Communities and Other Stakeholders Assist in the development of future services, policies and procedures. A.6 Impact on Performance and Outcomes Page 253 of 390
Page 254
6 Assist in the development of future services, policies and procedures. A.7 Adopting a Preventative Approach N/A A.8 Supporting Sustainable Development Assist in the development of future services, policies and procedures. Page 254 of 390
Page 255
7 Page 255 of 390
Page 256
Page 256 of 390
Page 257
HOUSING MIDLOTHIAN COUNCIL TENANT SATISFACTION SURVEY 2022 Between August and September 2022, Midlothian Council invited Knowledge Partnership, an independent market research company, to carry out a tenant satisfaction survey to establish how tenants feel about our services and where we might be able to do better. A total of 750 tenants were surveyed face to face, and as the analysis is now complete, Knowledge Partnership has prepared the following results summary. If you would like to find out more about the survey, please contact the Council's Housing Team on 0131 270 7500. Contact: Hazel Thomson. REPAIRS NEIGHBOURHOOD VALUE FOR MONEY INFORMATION NEXT STEPS TENANT PARTICIPATION The Counicl's staff team is currently reviewing the survey report. We will use the information it contains to assess our performance overall including identifying areas for improvement across key services such as repairs, and housing quality. Events to discuss the survey results are being planned and we would encourage you to attend these. Please contact Midlothian Council for further details. OVERALL SATISFACTION Prepared by Knowledge Partnership www.kpartners.co.uk 72% 86% 80% 82% 84% 81% 78% Page 257 of 390
Page 258
Page 258 of 390
Page 259
0 Tenant Satisfaction Survey 2022 Full Survey Report MIDLOTHIAN COUNCIL HOUSING SERVICE October 4, 2022 Authored by: Alan Kennedy, Knowledge Partnership Page 259 of 390
Page 260
1 CONTENTS Summary of key satisfaction results Page 1 Executive summary Page 2-6 Introduction Page 7-10 Overall tenant satisfaction Page 11-15 Housing quality satisfaction Page 16-19 Repair service Page 20-23 Information, participation, and contact Page 24-26 Rent value for money Page 27-30 Neighbourhood management satisfaction Page 31-33 Annex 1 to 4 Page 34-46 Page 260 of 390
Page 261
1 TABLE A - SUMMARY OF KEY SATISFACTION RESULTS FROM TENANT SATISFACTION SURVEY 2022 ARC indicator number Measure % tenants very and fairly satisfied 2019 (700 cases) % tenants very and fairly satisfied 2022 (750 cases) Council housing average since April 20201 Indicator Survey method Face to face Face to face Mixed methods Indicator 1 Satisfaction with Midlothian Council’s overall service 84.4% 81.5% 79.6% Indicator 2 Satisfaction with being kept informed about services and decisions 85.0% 80.1% 80.8% Indicator 5 Satisfaction with opportunities to participate in decision making 81.6% 77.9% 74.8% Indicator 7 Satisfaction with quality of home 83.7% 83.9% 77.2% Indicator 12 Satisfaction with repairs in last year 82.4% 72.4% 91.2%2 Indicator 13 Satisfaction with contribution of Midlothian Council to management of neighbourhood 81.1% 85.5% 77.3% Indicator 25 Rating of rent as very good or fairly good value for money 84.4% 80.8% 79.1% 1 Based on a sample of approx. 20,000 council tenants surveyed across 18 Landlords since April 2020 - weighted average (source SHR) 2 Includes transactional repairs satisfaction data which is generally more positive than TSS data Page 261 of 390
Page 262
2 Executive Summary This tenant satisfaction survey was carried out by Knowledge Partnership on behalf of Midlothian Council’s Housing Service (the Council) using an interviewer led face to face questionnaire. The survey was administered between August 3rd 2022 and September 17th 2022 and by the conclusion of the survey period, 750 tenants had completed a survey, representing 41.6% of all sampled tenants. Overall satisfaction ➢ Taking everything into account, 81.5% of Council tenants are satisfied with services overall in 2022 whilst 11.7% are dissatisfied. In 2019, 84.4% of tenants were satisfied overall whilst the Scottish council social housing average is currently 79.6%3. ➢ Analysis of the responses for overall tenant satisfaction by property style illustrates some degree of variation, e.g. 92.1% of tenants living in amenity homes are satisfied overall, which contrasts with the views of those living in four in a block, where 77.8% are satisfied overall. ➢ Tenant satisfaction by household size and composition shows that smaller households (86.5% satisfied), and those who do not have children at home (83.1%) tend to be more satisfied overall than larger households (78.2% satisfied), and those that do have children in the home (76.5%). ➢ Amongst the most positive tenants in terms of overall satisfaction are those who are aged 65 plus (89.9% satisfied), tenants who are retired (89.9%), or those who receive full rent payment (84.5%). Conversely, the tenants who are least satisfied include younger tenants e.g., those aged 16-34 (76.6% satisfied) or tenants who are ‘other not working’4 (69.7%). ➢ Although we cannot say for certain that this scenario applies to the Council’s result for overall satisfaction we have observed in other recent tenant satisfaction surveys that a tenant’s experience of service delivery and support during lockdown has a bearing on how they respond to the question of overall satisfaction i.e. where the tenant said they were satisfied with lockdown service delivery/support, an above average proportion of these tenants were also satisfied with housing services overall; the opposite applies in the case of tenants who were dissatisfied with services and support during lockdown. This lockdown effect may be one explanation for the 3% point reduction in the Council’s overall satisfaction figure compared to 2019. Housing quality ➢ Most tenants (83.9%) are satisfied with housing quality (8.3% are dissatisfied). The 2022 figure for satisfaction is very similar to 2019 (83.7% satisfied) but is ahead of the sector average (77.2%). ➢ In relation to tenant profile, satisfaction with housing quality is highest amongst tenants who are aged 65 plus or retired (both 91.6% satisfied) or within single person households (87.6%). Conversely, satisfaction is lowest amongst households containing children (77.5%), tenants aged 35 to 44 (76.5%), and those who are ‘other not working’ (75.0%). ➢ There is some amount variation in satisfaction with housing quality by property type i.e. amenity/wheelchair (89.4% satisfied) and semi/detached (86.6%), compared to four in a block (81.6%), and flats (77.4%). ➢ Housing quality satisfaction is highest for tenants living in smaller homes, e.g., 1 bed properties (92.8% satisfied), and lowest for those living 4 or more bed homes (69.2%) ➢ Around six in ten tenants (64.4%) said that there home was energy efficient whereas 25.9% said this was not the case and 9.7% did not know. In relation to heating, approx. half of tenants (50.9%) said they could afford to heat 3 Based on a sample of approx. 20,000 tenants surveyed across 18 Landlords since April 2020 - weighted average (source SHR) 4 Carers, job seekers, stay at home parents and those in education/training Page 262 of 390
Page 263
3 their home whilst more than one in four (26.4%) said they could not afford to heat their home (22.7% said ‘don’t know’). ➢ Analysis of the impact of ‘heating the home’ on tenants’ views of housing quality illustrates that where a tenant can afford to heat their home, 92.4% are satisfied with housing quality whereas in the case of tenants who cannot afford to heat their home, housing quality drops to 66.7%. ➢ Tenants who found it difficult to afford to heat their home said that their landlord could assist them by improving windows (42.9%), improving doors (30.3%), and by better insulating their home (23.2%). Repairs service ➢ Amongst tenants whose homes have been repaired in the last year, 72.4% are satisfied with the last repair whilst 19.3% are dissatisfied. In 2019, satisfaction with repairs was 82.4%, whilst the sector average (which includes landlords’ transactional repairs data) is 91.2%. ➢ In terms of property type, the most satisfied tenants by property type are those living in four in a block house formats (85.9%) whilst satisfaction for those living in flats is much lower at 65.0%. ➢ Assessing repair service satisfaction by the tenant’s economic status indicates that the most satisfied tenants in terms of repairs carried out in the last year are those who are unable to work (77.8% satisfied), or retired (77.5%), whilst the least satisfied tenants are those who are working (66.6%). ➢ Analysis of repair service satisfaction by period (within the last year) shows that tenants with repairs that were completed up to two months ago are more satisfied (75.9%) than those whose homes have received repairs in an earlier period. This may suggest that repair service satisfaction has been improving across the Council during the last 12 months. Information, participation, and committee awareness ➢ In 2022, 80.1% of tenants rated ‘being kept informed’ as good, whilst 13.1% said that Council was poor on this measure (and 6.8% replied ‘neither good nor poor’). Tenant satisfaction with being kept informed is somewhat lower than the 2019 survey (85.0% saying good). The council sector average for this figure in 2022 is 80.8%. ➢ Approx. eight in ten tenants (77.9%) are satisfied with opportunities to participate whilst 12.3% are dissatisfied on this measure. In 2019, 81.6% were satisfied whilst the current sector average for tenant participation is 74.8%. ➢ Satisfaction on the participation aspect of the housing service varies by tenant profile ranging from 85.1% for tenants who are retired to 66.0% for tenants aged 16-34. Lower satisfaction amongst the Council’s younger tenants may indicate a lack of awareness/interest in this aspect of the Council’s housing service i.e., 16.5% of tenants aged 16-34 answered ‘neither satisfied nor dissatisfied’ for this question. ➢ Most tenants (55.5%) are not particularly interested in getting involved in giving their views to their landlord. Where tenants do wish to give their views, use of surveys is the most popular method. Contact and communication ➢ Tenants’ preferences for contacting Council in the future are principally telephone i.e. mobile (63.9%) and landline (29.1%). Digital methods e.g. email (14.1%) and text (10.9%) are also popular with tenants as ways of contacting Council. Most tenants prefer to be kept informed by their landlord by means of letter (58.8%), telephone (43.7%), email (21.5%), and letter (19.5%). Page 263 of 390
Page 264
4 Rent ➢ Eight in ten tenants (80.8%) rate rent as good value for money, whilst 5.4% say that rent is poor value (and 13.9% answered ‘neither good nor poor’ value). In 2019, 84.4% rated rent as good value, whilst the 2022 Council sector average is 79.1%. ➢ Analysis by property size shows that tenants living in one bed homes are the most positive on this measure (87.6% say rent is good value), whilst the least positive are those tenants who live in four or more bed homes (76.9%). ➢ In relation to property type, those living in amenity/wheelchair adapted homes (92.1% say ‘good value’) are the most likely to say that rent is good value for money whilst the least likely to rate rent value as good are tenants living in four in a block properties (75.2%). ➢ Considering tenant profile, amongst the most positive tenants on rent value are those who can afford to heat their home (88.5% say rent is good value), and tenants who are aged 65 plus or retired (both 87.7%). The least positive on this measure are households who cannot afford to heat their home (66.1% say rent is good value), those who are neutral5 on this question (61.0%) and tenants who said their housing quality was poor (46.8%). Neighbourhoods ➢ Most tenants, (85.5%) are satisfied with neighbourhood management whilst 6.5% are dissatisfied. In 2019, 81.1% of tenants were satisfied with ‘neighbourhood management’ whilst the sector average in 2022 is 77.3%. We observe that neighbourhood management is the only comparable ARC indicator where the council’s 2022 survey score is higher than it was in the previous survey. Conclusions The 2022 tenant satisfaction survey indicates that the majority of tenants (81.5%) are satisfied with the overall service they receive from their landlord but that satisfaction in general has declined since 2019, and that some of this decline is likely in part to be explained by the enduring effect of lockdown service delivery on the views of a minority of tenants. Possible areas for further investigation Whist a majority of tenants have expressed satisfaction with the housing service they receive from the Council, a minority have identified some dissatisfaction and based on the tenant feedback in these and other areas, we would propose the following as having potential for further investigation. − Considering what actions might improve the Council’s service overall, the three main improvements are: o Providing a better repair service (20.0% of all tenants) o Improving the inside of the home (12.3%) o Improving communication (6.5%). − On improving housing quality, the three main improvement items are: o Improving windows (14.8% of all tenants) o Improving the bathroom (14.5%) 5 Responded ‘neither satisfied nor dissatisfied’ on housing quality Page 264 of 390
Page 265
5 o Improving the kitchen (12.9%) . − Additionally, on the matter of housing quality, making it easier for tenants to heat their home by improving windows, improving doors, and providing better internal insulation. − From the perspective of property repairs, the three main areas for improvement are: o Reducing the time it takes to start a repair (23.2% of all tenants) o Reducing the time it takes to complete a repair (18.1%) o Make it easier to report a repair (12.2%). − Considering rent value for money, the three main suggestions for improving rent value are: o Providing a better repair service (13.7% of all tenants) o Reducing the level of rent increases (13.7%) o Improving the inside of the home (11.9%). − In relation to keeping tenants informed on services and decisions, we note that more than one in ten tenants (13.1%) rate this aspect of services as poor and that this is a higher level of dissatisfaction than the Scottish Council average (10.0% in 2022). We consider that part of the reason for this outcome is dissatisfaction around repairs or upgrades communication/information i.e. for those tenants who were dissatisfied with their last property repair, more than one in three (35.7%) said that being kept informed was poor. We also detect in the comments that tenants made about overall improvement that there is some dissatisfaction relating to a lack of follow up information when dealing with the service. − The three main improvements that tenants are seeking in relation to neighbourhood management are: o Deal better with problem neighbours (9.5% of all tenants) o Tackling dog fouling (7.2%) o Maintaining trees, shrubs, and grass areas (6.5%). − Finally, we observe that the repair service features in a number of improvement areas e.g. as an improvement item relating to overall service, as a value for money improvement, as an element of dissatisfaction with information provision, and as part of the comments made by tenants in relation to housing quality improvement. − Figure A below shows the association between satisfaction with the maintenance service and overall satisfaction i.e. as repairs/maintenance service satisfaction moves from very satisfied to very dissatisfied so the satisfaction with the Council’s overall housing service declines i.e., in the case of those tenants who were very satisfied with their last property repair, 92.0% were also satisfied with the housing service overall. In contrast, where the tenant is dissatisfied with their last property repair, overall satisfaction with the housing service is 35.1%. In figure A, those tenants who are dissatisfied with their last property repair represent 15.1% of all the tenants shown, and therefore, the impact of their view on overall satisfaction with the housing service is fairly significant. Page 265 of 390
Page 266
6 Figure A – all repairs Q- Overall satisfaction with housing services compared to satisfaction with last property repair 53.8% 19.3% 15.7% 7.7% 10.8% 35.1% 38.2% 63.9% 55.7% 46.2% 24.3% 46.4% 4.7% 4.8% 14.3% 10.8% 13.5% 6.4% 2.4% 7.8% 8.6% 21.5% 18.9% 6.8% 3.6% 5.7% 13.8% 32.4% 4.9% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither-nor Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Overall Overall satisfaction Repair satisfaction Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither-nor Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied No opinion Page 266 of 390
Page 267
7 Introduction This tenant satisfaction survey was carried out by Knowledge Partnership on behalf of Midlothian Council’s Housing Service (the Council) using an interviewer led face to face questionnaire. The survey was administered between August 3rd 2022 and September 17th 2022. Survey sampling and survey response The survey sampling frame comprised a stratified random sample of 1,875 tenant properties drawn from a population comprising all housing units (being 6,536 properties). Face to face (door to door) interviewing took place using a proportionate sampling method whereby interviews were administered according to factors such as location, number of bedrooms, property type etc. The adjusted survey response rate based on completing 750 interviews is 41.6%; this excludes 72 tenants who asked to be withdrawn from the interview process at the pre-survey stage6. Property and location profile Property type As illustrated in table B, most interviews were carried out with tenants living in mid-terraced homes (22.8%); this compares to 23.6% of all tenants living in this type of property. Table B – Survey sample by property type Property type Interviews % interviews Property type Stock % stock House Mid Terrace 171 22.8% House Mid Terrace 1,541 23.6% House End Terrace 123 16.4% House End Terrace 1,106 16.9% House Semi Detached 117 15.6% House Semi Detached 1,039 15.9% Four In Block Upper 94 12.5% Four In Block Upper 731 11.2% Four In Block Ground 91 12.1% Four In Block Ground 797 12.2% Flat - Stair Ground 43 5.7% Flat - Stair Ground 326 5.0% Flat - Stair 1St Flr 40 5.3% Flat - Stair 1St Flr 356 5.4% House Amenity 33 4.4% House Amenity 282 4.3% Flat - Stair 2Nd Flr 22 2.9% Flat - Stair 2Nd Flr 196 3.0% House Detached 9 1.2% House Detached 77 1.2% House Wheelchair 5 0.7% House Wheelchair 53 0.8% Flat - Stair 3Rd Flr 1 0.1% Flat - Stair 3Rd Flr 9 0.1% House Bungalow 1 0.1% House Bungalow 16 0.2% Other formats - 0.0% Other formats e.g., studio 7 0.1% Total 750 100.0% Total 6,536 100.0% Property size As set out in table C, across a total of 750 completed surveys, there was a close match between the proportion of ‘completes’ by number of bedrooms and the ‘all stock’ percentages e.g. 54.1% of all interviews were completed with tenants living in 2 bed homes compared to 54.5% of all tenants who live in this size of property . 6 Effective sample was 1,803; note that 12 tenants asked to be surveyed by phone Page 267 of 390
Page 268
8 Table C – Survey sample by number of bedrooms Beds Interviews % interviews Beds Stock % stock 1 bed 97 12.9% 1 bed 836 12.8% 2 bed 406 54.1% 2 bed 3,561 54.5% 3 bed 208 27.7% 3 bed 1,825 27.9% 4 or more 39 5.1% 4 or more 314 4.9% Totals 750 100.0% Total 6,536 100.0% Location Table D considers the breakdown of completed surveys by location. This shows a close match between the locations that were surveyed and the spread of these areas within the Council’s population e.g., 19.1% of surveys were completed with tenants living in Dalkeith which compares to 19.7% of all tenants living within this location. Table D - Survey sample by location Interview location Interviews % interviews Stock location stock % stock Dalkeith 143 19.1% Dalkeith 1,288 19.7% Penicuik 126 16.8% Penicuik 1,057 16.2% Bonnyrigg 121 16.1% Bonnyrigg 1,031 15.8% Gorebridge 82 10.9% Gorebridge 702 10.7% Mayfield 72 9.6% Mayfield 593 9.1% Loanhead 71 9.5% Loanhead 562 8.6% Danderhall 37 4.9% Danderhall 308 4.7% Newtongrange 25 3.3% Newtongrange 253 3.9% Pathhead 14 1.9% Pathhead 124 1.9% Poltonhall 12 1.6% Poltonhall 99 1.5% Rosewell 11 1.5% Rosewell 92 1.4% Gowkshill 10 1.3% Gowkshill 96 1.5% Bilston 8 1.1% Bilston 112 1.7% Easthouses 7 0.9% Easthouses 57 0.9% Roslin 5 0.7% Roslin 58 0.9% Auchendinny 3 0.4% Auchendinny 19 0.3% Other Areas e.g., Lasswade etc. 3 0.4% Other areas e.g., Lasswade etc. 85 1.3% Total 750 100.0% Total 6,536 100.0% Person profile As illustrated in table E, a wide range of tenant ages took part in the survey e.g., 11.6% of respondents were aged 25 to 34. Note in the case of table E comparisons between the survey interviews and stock percentages should be treated with care as a large proportion of stock ages in the Council’s stock database have not been reported (11.1%). Page 268 of 390
Page 269
9 Table E - Survey sample age break Age Interviews % interviews Age Stock % stock 16 to 24 16 2.1% 16 to 24 125 1.9% 25 to 34 87 11.6% 25 to 34 844 12.9% 35 to 44 115 15.3% 35 to 44 1,149 17.6% 45 to 54 144 19.2% 45 to 54 1,204 18.4% 55 to 64 144 19.2% 55 to 64 1,185 18.1% 65 to 74 130 17.3% 65 to 74 753 11.5% 75 plus 106 14.1% 75 plus 551 8.4% Rather not say 8 1.1% Rather not say 725 11.1% Total 750 100.0% Total 6,536 100.0% Table F illustrates the break-down of survey responses by household size/type. This shows a wide range of households for example, 14.8% of all surveyed households comprised one adult under 60 years of age, 22.8% comprised one adult aged 60 and over etc. Households containing children represent 26.7% of all households that were surveyed. Table F –Survey sample by household size/composition (base 750) Household size/composition % all surveys Household size/composition % all surveys One adult under 60 14.8% 1 adult with children 12.0% One adult aged 60 or over 22.8% 2 adults with children 11.5% Two adults both under 60 9.2% 3 or more adults with children 3.2% Two adults, at least one 60 or over 17.2% Declined 0.8% Three or more adults 16 or over 8.5% Totals 100.0% As set out in table G, most surveyed tenants were either or working (37.2%), retired (31.7%), or unable to work (16.1%). This table will add to more than 100% because tenants may have chosen more than one status e.g. part time work and student. Table G –Survey sample by tenant status (base 750) Status % all surveys Status % all surveys Full time/part time work 37.2% Job seeker 4.8% Retired 31.7% Carer 4.7% Unable to work 16.1% Student/training 1.0% Not seeking work/at home with children 5.7% Declined 1.3% Ethnic origin Most tenants surveyed were white, e.g. 91.7% declared themselves to be ‘White Scottish’, 6.1% said they were ‘White British’. Housing benefit status Just over five in ten tenants (54.9%) received government assistance to pay their rent whilst 42.3% were in not in receipt of any government help to pay their rent. A small proportion of tenants did not know or declined to answer this question (2.8%). Page 269 of 390
Page 270
10 Report layout and weighting This report sets out tenant feedback on the questions that were posed in the survey. For each section, figures are provided alongside the relevant commentary. We have set out in the data tables an analysis of the survey results by characteristics such as property size etc. The survey data is unweighted because as illustrated in the preceding tables, there is reasonable match between the tenants , locations and properties that were surveyed and the wider tenant population on these measures. Comparisons Throughout the report we have made comparisons where possible with the Council’s previous tenant satisfaction survey (2019). Rounding Note that as a result of the way Excel deals with rounding (rounding up all data), some figures in the charts and tables contained within this report may not sum to exactly 100%. Small data sets To make it easier to read the Excel charts, any figures of 2% or less have been excluded from the chart displays. Margin of error Based on an available population of 1,803 households, and a response rate of 750 completed surveys, the margin of error for the data contained in this survey is +-2.7%. Page 270 of 390
Page 271
11 Overall tenant satisfaction Figure 1 sets out the level of tenant satisfaction with the overall service provided by Midlothian Council (the Council) and illustrates that 81.5% of tenants are satisfied in 2022. Approx. one in ten tenants (11.7%) are dissatisfied with the Council’s service overall. The comparable Council satisfaction figure for 2019 was 84.4% whilst the Scottish social housing average satisfaction level for councils is currently 79.6%.7 Figure 1 –Satisfaction with the overall service provided by the Council (base 750) Q-Taking everything into account, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the overall service provided by Midlothian Council’s Housing Service? Impact of lockdown Although we cannot say for certain that this scenario applies to the Council’s result for overall satisfaction we have observed in other recent tenant satisfaction surveys that a tenant’s experience of service delivery and support during lockdown has a bearing on how they respond to the question of overall satisfaction i.e. where the tenant said they were satisfied with lockdown service delivery/support, an above average proportion of these tenants were also satisfied with services overall; the opposite applies in the case of tenants who were dissatisfied with services and support during lockdown. This lockdown effect may be one explanation for the 3% point reduction in the Council’s overall satisfaction figure compared to 2019. 7 Based on a sample of approx. 20,000 tenants surveyed across 18 landlords since April 2020 - weighted average (source SHR) 35.1% 46.4% 6.4% 6.8% 4.9% 0.4% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0% Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither-nor Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied No opinion Page 271 of 390
Page 272
12 Property size Considering overall tenant satisfaction by property size (as measured by number of beds), satisfaction ranges from 89.7% satisfied for tenants living in 1 bed homes through 82.2% (2 bed), to 76.9% for 3 and 4 bed plus homes. Property style Analysis of the responses for overall tenant satisfaction by property style (table 1) illustrates some degree of variation, e.g. 92.1% of tenants living in amenity homes are satisfied overall, which contrasts with the views of those living in four in a block, where 77.8% are satisfied overall. Table 1 - Overall satisfaction by property type (base 750) Q-Taking everything into account, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the overall service provided by the Council? Type Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither-nor Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied No opinion Amenity8 47.4% 44.7% - 5.3% 2.6% - Semi/detached 36.2% 46.5% 5.5% 7.9% 3.9% - Terraced 31.0% 51.4% 8.2% 5.8% 3.7% - Flat 38.7% 41.5% 5.7% 8.5% 4.7% 0.9% Four in a block 36.2% 41.6% 5.9% 7.0% 8.1% 1.1% All types 35.1% 46.4% 6.4% 6.8% 4.9% 0.4% Tenant profile Table 2 illustrates tenant satisfaction by household size and composition and shows that smaller households (86.5% satisfied), and those who do not have children in the household (83.1%) tend to be more satisfied overall than larger households (78.2% satisfied), and those that have children in the home (76.5%). Table 2 - Overall satisfaction by tenant profile (base 750) Q- Taking everything into account, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the overall service provided by the Council? Tenant profile Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither- nor Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied No opinion Single person household 40.4% 46.1% 2.8% 6.0% 3.9% 0.7% Two or more-person household 32.3% 45.9% 8.7% 7.4% 5.6% 0.2% No children in household 37.5% 45.6% 5.7% 6.4% 4.4% 0.4% Children in household 29.5% 47.0% 8.5% 8.0% 6.5% 0.5% All tenants 35.1% 46.4% 6.4% 6.8% 4.9% 0.4% As illustrated in table 3, amongst the most positive tenants in terms of overall satisfaction are those who are aged 65 plus (89.9% satisfied), tenants who are retired (89.9%), or those who receive full rent payment (84.5%). Conversely, the tenants who are least satisfied include younger tenants e.g., those aged 16-34 (76.6% satisfied) or tenants who are other not working9 (69.7%). 8 Includes wheelchair properties 9 Comprising stay at home parents, job seekers, carers and those in training Page 272 of 390
Page 273
13 Table 3 - Overall satisfaction by tenant profile (base 750) Q- Taking everything into account, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the overall service provided by the Council? Tenant profile Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither- nor Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied No opinion 65 plus 46.2% 43.6% 4.2% 3.4% 2.5% - Retired 44.5% 45.3% 4.2% 2.5% 3.4% - Yes, all of my rent is covered by benefits 40.1% 44.4% 4.7% 4.7% 5.4% 0.7% Unable to work 39.1% 42.6% 0.9% 10.4% 6.1% 0.9% 55 to 64 31.3% 50.0% 2.1% 7.6% 9.0% No, we pay full rent 33.8% 46.4% 6.9% 7.9% 4.7% 0.3% Employed 29.2% 50.2% 8.3% 6.9% 5.1% 0.4% 35 to 44 27.0% 50.4% 7.8% 7.8% 6.1% 0.9% Yes, part of my rent is covered by benefits 27.8% 49.6% 8.7% 9.6% 4.3% - 16 to 34 23.3% 53.4% 5.8% 8.7% 6.8% 1.9% 45 to 54 36.1% 37.5% 13.9% 9.7% 2.8% Other not working 28.6% 41.1% 10.7% 11.6% 7.1% 0.9% All tenants 35.1% 46.4% 6.4% 6.8% 4.9% 0.4% Tenant satisfaction by location is shown in table 4 and illustrates some degree of variation e.g. 87.3% overall satisfaction in Loanhead compared to 77.0% in Dalkeith. The variation between high and low satisfaction levels by town may partly reflect the demographic of the survey sample in these locations e.g. Dalkeith has a lower than average proportion of tenants aged 65 plus (28.0%); this compares to 36.6% in Loanhead. In addition, Dalkeith has a smaller proportion of tenants who are retired (28.6%); this compares to 38.0% in Loanhead. Also relevant here could be the property types that were sampled in each location e.g. in Dalkeith, 0.7% of the survey sample was amenity tenants compared to 4.2% in Loanhead. In the case of the other highest performing stock type i.e., semi/detached, the sample proportions were once again lower in Dalkeith (2.8%) than they were in Loanhead (16.9%). Table 4 - Overall satisfaction by town (base 750) Q- Taking everything into account, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the overall service provided by the Council? Town Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither- nor Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied No opinion Loanhead 35.2% 52.1% 4.2% 5.6% 2.8% - Bonnyrigg 52.9% 33.1% 5.0% 8.3% 0.8% - Penicuik 35.7% 47.6% 8.7% 2.4% 4.8% 0.8% Mayfield 16.7% 65.3% 8.3% 4.2% 5.6% - Other town 28.9% 50.4% 6.7% 5.2% 8.9% - Gorebridge 32.9% 45.1% 3.7% 17.1% 1.2% - Dalkeith 35.7% 41.3% 7.0% 7.0% 7.7% 1.4% All tenants 35.1% 46.4% 6.4% 6.8% 4.9% 0.4% Page 273 of 390
Page 274
14 Service improvements All tenants were asked to say how the Council could improve its overall service. The results of this enquiry are set out in figure 2 and indicate that providing a better repair service (20.0% of all tenants), improving the inside of the house (12.3%), improving communications (6.5%), and upgrading the external parts of the home (6.3%) are the four main improvement actions in terms of overall satisfaction. We observe that 50.0% of tenants said that nothing needed to be improved about the service whilst 4.7% replied ‘don’t know’. Figure 2 – Service improvements (base 750) Q- What if anything should your landlord do to improve its overall service? Other comments/suggestions One hundred and forty eight tenants (19.7%) made a comment relating to an improvement or suggested another change and these are listed in annex 1 by town. Some examples of the comments made are provided below: Q- What if anything should your landlord do to improve its overall service? (other/comments) ✓ It’s a nightmare to get repairs done. Better maintenance service needed ✓ Back fence is falling down and steps in pathway needs repairing ✓ They don't maintain the houses properly. They give you a nice new boiler, but they don't give new radiators ✓ Come when I ask them to (repairs); offer a quicker response time ✓ Make it easier to get a hold of them. When you phone no one answers, and an email is not replied to 19.7% 1.3% 1.6% 1.7% 2.0% 2.9% 3.3% 6.3% 6.5% 12.3% 20.0% Other Improve or maintain common areas such as closes, stairwells, door entry systems etc. Reduce the level of rent rises Deal with parking problems Improve or maintain the local landscaped areas Deal with problem neighbours or anti-social behaviour Sort out tenants' gardens Upgrade or improve the outside of the house e.g. cladding, painting, roofs etc. Improve communication with tenants Upgrade or improve the inside of the house e.g. kitchen, bathroom, windows etc Provide a better repairs service 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% Page 274 of 390
Page 275
15 ✓ Had a repair done a couple of times to the seal of my bath but it has not worked. Seal has broken again so obviously not done properly ✓ Improve the surrounding gardens ✓ Make it easier to move house ✓ The guttering is a safety concern as it's hanging off the bracket. We got new windows a year ago and they're not sealed properly; have called in about this but still waiting to hear back. Why do upgrades on doors and windows when they don't need replaced? Stop hiding behind Covid and provide a service. Page 275 of 390
Page 276
16 Housing quality satisfaction Overall tenant satisfaction with the quality of housing is set out in figure 3 and reveals that 83.9% of tenants are satisfied with their home whilst 8.3% are dissatisfied in 2022. The current year figure for satisfaction on this measure is similar to that that found during the 2019 survey (83.7% satisfied) but is ahead of the Scottish Council average (77.2%). Figure 3 –Satisfaction with housing quality overall (base 750) Q- Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the quality of your home? Housing quality satisfaction is highest for tenants living in smaller homes, e.g., 1 bed properties (92.8% satisfied), and lowest for those living 4 or more bed, homes (69.2%) - (table 5). Table 5 - Satisfaction with housing quality by property size (base 750) Q- Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the quality of your home? Bedrooms Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither-nor Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied 1 bed 55.7% 37.1% 3.1% 3.1% 1.0% 2 beds 38.9% 42.6% 10.6% 6.7% 1.2% 3 beds 41.3% 45.7% 4.3% 7.2% 1.4% 4 plus beds 41.0% 28.2% 10.3% 15.4% 5.1% All sizes 41.9% 42.0% 7.9% 6.8% 1.5% 41.9% 42.0% 7.9% 6.8% 1.5% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither-nor Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Page 276 of 390
Page 277
17 Table 6 illustrates a small amount variation in satisfaction with housing quality by property type i.e. amenity/wheelchair (89.4% satisfied) and semi/detached (86.6%), compared to four in a block (81.6%), and flats (77.4%). Table 6 - Satisfaction with housing quality by property type (base 750) Q- Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the quality of your home? Property type Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither-nor Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Amenity/wheelchair 52.6% 36.8% 5.3% 5.3% Semi/detached 44.9% 41.7% 5.5% 6.3% 1.6% Terraced 39.5% 46.3% 8.5% 5.1% 0.7% Four in a block 43.2% 38.4% 5.9% 9.2% 3.2% Flat 38.7% 38.7% 13.2% 8.5% 0.9% All types 41.9% 42.0% 7.9% 6.8% 1.5% In relation to tenant profile, table 7 illustrates that satisfaction with housing quality is highest amongst tenants who are aged 65 plus or retired (both 91.6% satisfied) or single person households (87.6%). Conversely, satisfaction is lowest amongst households containing children (77.5%), tenants aged 35 to 44 (76.5%), and those who are ‘other not working’ (75.0%). Table 7 - Satisfaction with housing quality by tenant profile (base 750) Q- Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the quality of your home? Tenant profile Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither- nor Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied 65 plus 60.2% 31.4% 3.8% 3.8% 0.8% Retired 58.1% 33.5% 4.7% 3.0% 0.8% Single person household 52.8% 34.8% 6.4% 5.0% 1.1% No children in household 47.8% 38.6% 7.2% 5.3% 1.1% 55 to 64 38.9% 44.4% 12.5% 2.8% 1.4% 45 to 54 36.1% 46.5% 6.9% 9.0% 1.4% Employed 34.7% 47.7% 7.9% 9.4% 0.4% Two or more-person household 35.7% 46.1% 8.4% 8.0% 1.7% Unable to work 42.6% 39.1% 8.7% 6.1% 3.5% 16 to 34 20.4% 57.3% 10.7% 9.7% 1.9% Children in household 27.0% 50.5% 9.0% 11.0% 2.5% 35 to 44 36.5% 40.0% 7.8% 13.0% 2.6% Other not working 28.6% 46.4% 12.5% 8.9% 3.6% All profiles 41.9% 42.0% 7.9% 6.8% 1.5% Energy efficiency and heating the home Around six in ten tenants (64.4%) said that there home was energy efficient whereas 25.9% said this was not the case and 9.7% did not know In relation to heating, approx. half of tenants (50.9%) said they could afford to heat their home whilst more than one in four (26.4%) said they could not afford to heat their home (22.70% said ‘don’t know’). Page 277 of 390
Page 278
18 Figure 4 shows the impact of ‘heating the home’ on tenants’ views of housing quality and illustrates that where a tenant can afford to heat their home, 92.4% are satisfied with housing quality whereas in the case of tenants who cannot afford to heat their home, housing quality drops to 66.7%. Figure 4 – Heating the home v housing quality (base 750) Q- Can you afford to heat your home v. housing quality? Making it easier to heat the home Tenants who said that they found it difficult to afford to heat their home were asked to say what their landlord could do to help them heat their home more easily. The results of this enquiry are shown in table 8 and illustrate that improving windows (42.9%), improving doors (30.3%), and better internal insulation of the home (23.2%) are the three main ways in which the Council could help tenants heat their home more easily. Twenty five tenants added a comment about this item (other 12.6%), and these comments are set out in annex 5. Table 8 – Landlord help with heating costs (base 198) Q- How could your landlord help you to heat your home more easily? Improvement % Improvement % Improve windows (draughty) 42.9% Offer help with changing gas/electricity supplier 4.0% Improve doors (draughty) 30.3% Improve boiler 3.5% Better internal insulation of the home 23.2% Offer energy saving tips/advice 2.5% Better external insulation e.g., cladding 11.1% Other 12.6% Better heating system 11.1% 56.8% 17.2% 41.9% 35.6% 49.5% 42.0% 2.6% 15.7% 7.9% 4.7% 13.1% 6.8%4.5% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% Can afford to heat home Cannot afford to heat home All tenants Page 278 of 390
Page 279
19 Service improvements All tenants were asked to say how the Council could improve the quality of their home. Figure 5 indicates that improving windows (14.8% of all tenants), improving the bathroom (14.5%), and improving the kitchen (12.9%) are the three main housing quality improvement actions required by tenants. We observe that 45.1% of tenants said that nothing needed to be improved about the quality of their home whilst 3.7% replied ‘don’t know’. Figure 5 – Housing improvements (base 750) Q- What specific improvements if any should your landlord make to provide you with a better quality home? Other comments/suggestions One hundred and fifty two tenants (20.3%) made a comment relating to improvement or suggested another improvement and these are listed in annex 2 by town. Some examples of the comments made are provided below: Q- What specific improvements if any should your landlord make to provide you with a better quality home? (other/comments) ✓ Ceilings are all cracked. Roof has been leaking for years as roof tiles missing. Windows have been an issue since they were replaced ✓ Doors need adjusted and have mould in bedrooms ✓ Floorboards needs replaced ✓ I feel my house is falling to bits. I have reported several times, but nothing gets done ✓ Improve the external doors as water comes in the front door ✓ Plasterboard in rooms need replaced ✓ They could put in new doors. 20.3% 1.7% 1.9% 2.9% 4.3% 4.8% 6.7% 6.7% 8.3% 12.9% 14.5% 14.8% Other Improve/upgrade the door entry system Improve/upgrade the common stairs e.g. painting/repair Provide better noise insulation Improve/upgrade the outside of the building e.g. roof Improve/upgrade the boiler/heating system Deal with dampness/condensation in my home Improve/clean the gutters/pipework Reduce cold/draughts and provide better insulation Improve/upgrade the kitchen Improve/upgrade the bathroom Improve/upgrade the windows 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% Page 279 of 390
Page 280
20 Repair service Satisfaction with repairs Amongst tenants whose homes have been repaired in the last year, 72.4% are satisfied with the last repair whilst 19.3% are dissatisfied (figure 6). During the 2019 survey, 82.4% of tenants were satisfied with their most recent repair (carried out within the last year). The Scottish Council housing sector average for repairs satisfaction (which includes transactional data), is 91.2%. Figure 6 – Satisfaction with the repair service (base 243-repair in last year only) Q- Thinking about the last time you had repairs carried out, how satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the repair service provided by the Council? Repairs satisfaction by property factors Table 9 illustrates repairs satisfaction by property type. This table shows that the most satisfied tenants by property type are those living in four in a block house formats (85.9%) whilst for those living in flats satisfaction is much lower at 65.0%. 53.1% 19.3% 8.2% 11.1% 8.2% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither-nor Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Page 280 of 390
Page 281
21 Table 9 - Satisfaction with the repair service (base 243-repair in last year only) Q- Thinking about the last time you had repairs carried out, how satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the repair service provided by the Council? Property type Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither-nor Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Four in a block 56.1% 29.8% 3.5% 5.3% 5.3% Amenity/wheelchair 66.7% 8.3% 8.3% 8.3% 8.3% Semi/detached 64.4% 8.9% 8.9% 11.1% 6.7% Terraced 48.3% 18.0% 11.2% 11.2% 11.2% Flat 42.5% 22.5% 7.5% 20.0% 7.5% All types 53.1% 19.3% 8.2% 11.1% 8.2% Repairs satisfaction by period (last year only) Figure 7 analyses repair service satisfaction by when the repair was completed (within the last year) and shows that tenants with repairs that were completed up to two months ago are more satisfied (75.9%) than those tenants who homes have received repairs in an earlier period. This may suggest that repair service satisfaction has been improving over the last 12 months. Figure 7 – Satisfaction with the repair service (base 243-repair in last year only) Q- Thinking about the last time you had repairs carried out, how satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the repair service provided by the Council? 53.1% 49.2% 39.2% 56.5% 62.1% 19.3% 22.0% 29.4% 15.2% 13.8% 8.2% 5.1% 15.7% 6.5% 6.9% 11.1% 13.6% 9.8% 17.4% 6.9% 8.2% 10.2% 5.9% 4.3% 10.3% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% All repairs last year More than 6 months ago More than 4 months up to 6 months ago More than 2 months up to 4 months ago Up to 2 months ago Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither-nor Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Page 281 of 390
Page 282
22 Repairs satisfaction by tenant status Figure 8 analyses repair service satisfaction by the tenant’s economic status and illustrates that the most satisfied tenants in terms of repairs carried out in the last year are those who are unable to work (77.8% satisfied), or retired (77.5%), whilst the least satisfied tenants are those who are working (66.6%). Figure 8 – Satisfaction with the repair service (base 243-repair in last year only) Q- Thinking about the last time you had repairs carried out, how satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the repair service provided by the Council? Improving the repair service As shown in figure 9, the top six improvement suggestions for the repair service are: 1. Reduce the time it takes to start the repair (23.2% of all tenants) 2. Reduce the time it takes to complete a repair (18.1%) 3. Make it easier to report a repair (12.2%) 4. Complete the repairs on the first visit (11.4%) 5. Improve the quality of repair work (9.4%) 6. Ensure repair workers turn up (9.0%). 53.1% 47.1% 51.4% 57.5% 63.9% 19.3% 19.5% 16.2% 20.0% 13.9% 8.2% 4.6% 13.5% 11.3% 5.6% 11.1% 19.5% 5.4% 7.5% 5.6% 8.2% 9.2% 13.5% 3.8% 11.1% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% All tenants Employed Other not working Retired Unable to work Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither-nor Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Page 282 of 390
Page 283
23 Figure 9 – Improving the repair service (base 678, all repairs regardless of time frame)10 Q- How if at all, do you think that your landlord should improve its repair service? Repair service comments/suggestions Thirty seven tenants (5.4%) made an additional comment about repair service improvement, and these are set out in annex 3 by town. Some examples of the comments made in relation to the repair service are provided below: Q- How if at all, do you think that your landlord should improve its repair service? (other comments) ✓ Finish the jobs that they start ✓ Have a portal or online service to report repairs ✓ More qualified and equipped workers ✓ Replace items like doors as opposed to just patching up ✓ The list of what they say is an emergency is not what we say is an emergency (it's very limited). 10 Excludes ‘no repair’ 5.4% 1.8% 2.2% 2.2% 3.1% 3.8% 6.5% 9.0% 9.4% 11.4% 12.2% 18.1% 23.2% Other Ask repair workers to clean up after themselves Have more flexible times available for completing a repair e.g. evenings, weekends Repair workers should have a better attitude Make sure workers do not come to my home without an appointment Improve communication with the landlord's staff Improve communication with the Contractor's staff Ensure repair workers turn up when they say they will Improve the quality of repair work including the quality of the materials used for repairs Complete the repairs on the first visit whenever possible Make it easier to report a repair Reduce the time it takes to complete a repair Reduce the time it takes to start the repair 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% Page 283 of 390
Page 284
24 Information, participation, and contact In 2022, 80.1% of tenants rated ‘being kept informed’ as good, whilst 13.1% said that the Council was poor on this measure (and 6.8% replied ‘neither good nor poor’) (figure 10). Tenant satisfaction with being kept informed is somewhat lower than the 2019 survey (85.0% saying good). The sector average for this figure in 2022 is 80.8%. Figure 10 – Information (base 750) Q- How good or poor do you feel the Council is at keeping you informed about their services and decisions? Information and repair service We observe that there is a relationship between how tenants have responded to the question about their last repair (conducted in the last year) and how they rated the Council’s information provision. This information is set out in table 10 and shows that for tenants who were dissatisfied with their last property repair, more than one in three (35.7%) said that information provision was poor (compared to 13.4% of tenants whose property repair had been satisfactory). This may indicate that an aspect of information provision which is reducing the ‘good’ rating of this variable is information exchange as this relates to a property repair. Table 10 - Satisfaction with the repair service (base 243-repair in last year only) v information provision Q- Thinking about the last time you had repairs carried out, how satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the repair service provided by the Council? v. How good or poor do you feel the Council is at keeping you informed about their services and decisions? Rating of last repair % saying information provision is poor Satisfied with repair 13.4% Dissatisfied with repair 35.7% 33.8% 46.3% 6.8% 10.2% 2.9% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0% Very good Fairly good Neither-nor Fairly poor Very poor Page 284 of 390
Page 285
25 Tenant participation As illustrated in table 11, approx. eight in ten tenants (77.9%) are satisfied with opportunities to participate whilst 12.3% are dissatisfied on this measure. In 2019, 81.6% were satisfied whilst the current Scottish Council sector average for tenant participation is 74.8%. Satisfaction on this aspect of service varies by tenant profile ranging from 85.1% for tenants who are who are retired to 66.0% for tenants aged 16-34. Lower satisfaction amongst the Council’s younger tenants, may indicate a lack of awareness/interest in this aspect of the Council’s housing service (given that 16.5% of tenants aged 16-34 answered ‘neither satisfied nor dissatisfied’ for this question). Table 11 - Satisfaction with tenant participation (750) Q- How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with opportunities given to you to participate in your landlord's decision-making process? Tenant profile Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither-nor Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Retired 34.3% 50.8% 6.8% 6.4% 1.7% 65 plus 35.2% 49.6% 6.8% 5.9% 2.5% No children in household 30.1% 49.6% 8.8% 8.8% 2.6% 55 to 64 23.6% 55.6% 4.9% 10.4% 5.6% Employed 24.5% 53.1% 9.7% 10.1% 2.5% 35 to 44 27.0% 50.4% 11.3% 9.6% 1.7% 45 to 54 31.9% 43.1% 12.5% 9.7% 2.8% Unable to work 40.0% 34.8% 12.2% 7.8% 5.2% Children in household 30.5% 42.5% 12.0% 10.5% 4.5% Other not working 25.9% 42.9% 11.6% 14.3% 5.4% 16 to 34 30.1% 35.9% 16.5% 14.6% 2.9% Total 30.0% 47.9% 9.9% 9.2% 3.1% Preferred ways of offering tenant views Most tenants (55.5%) are not particularly interested in getting involved in giving their views to their landlord. Where tenants do wish to give their views, surveys is the most popular method of participating (table 12). Table 12 – Consultation preferences (750) Q- How do you prefer to give your views about your landlord's activities and decisions? Method % Method % Through paper, online, phone surveys 43.6% Other (mainly by letter) 4.7% Meetings/events 2.7% Not interested in giving any views 55.5% Focus groups 1.9% Contact preferences Tenants’ preferences for contacting the Council in the future are principally telephone i.e. mobile (63.9%) and landline (29.1%). Digital methods e.g. email (14.1%) and text (10.9%) are also popular with tenants as ways of contacting Council. Other preferred methods (1.2%) comprise through another person such as a family member. Page 285 of 390
Page 286
26 Figure 11 – Contacting the Council (base 750) Q - What would be your preferred ways of contacting the Council in the future? As illustrated in table 13, most tenants prefer to be kept informed by their landlord by means of letter (58.8%), telephone (43.7%), email (21.5%), and newsletter (19.5%). Table 13 – Information preferences (750) Q- And how do you prefer the Council to keep you informed about their services and decisions? Method % preference Letter 58.8% Telephone 43.7% E-mail 21.5% Newsletter 19.5% Visits from housing officers 2.3% WhatsApp/Instagram etc. 1.1% Video conferencing e.g., Zoom 0.1% 1.2% 0.4% 0.9% 1.2% 9.9% 10.9% 14.1% 29.1% 63.9% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% Page 286 of 390
Page 287
27 Rent value for money As set out in figure 13, most tenants (80.8%) rate rent as good value for money, whilst 5.4% say that rent is poor value (and 13.9% answered ‘neither good nor poor’ value). In 2019, 84.4% rated rent as good value, whilst the 2022 Council sector average is 79.1%. Figure 12 – Rating of rent value for money (base 750) Q- Taking into account the accommodation and the services the Council provides, to what extent do you think that the rent for this property represents good or poor value for money? Is it…… Table 14 indicates rent value by property size and shows that tenants living in one bed homes are the most positive on this measure (87.6% say rent is good value), whilst the least positive are those tenants who live in four or more bed homes (76.9%). Table 14 - Rating of rent value for money by property size (base 750) Q- Taking into account the accommodation and the services the Council provides, to what extent do you think that the rent for this property represents good or poor value for money? Is it…… Apartments Very good Fairly good Neither-nor Fairly poor Very poor 1 bed 40.2% 47.4% 10.3% 2.1% - 3 beds 37.0% 46.2% 13.0% 3.4% 0.5% 2 beds 36.7% 41.6% 15.3% 5.2% 1.2% 4 plus beds 33.3% 43.6% 12.8% 5.1% 5.1% All sizes 37.1% 43.7% 13.9% 4.3% 1.1% 37.1% 43.7% 13.9% 4.3% 1.1% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0% Very good Fairly good Neither-nor Fairly poor Very poor Page 287 of 390
Page 288
28 In relation to property type, tenants living in amenity/wheelchair adapted homes (92.1% say ‘good value’) are the most likely to say that rent is good value for money whilst the least likely to rate rent value as good are tenants living in four in a block properties (75.2%) – table 15. Table 15- Rating of rent value for money by property type (base 750) Q- Taking into account the accommodation and the services the Council provides, to what extent do you think that the rent for this property represents good or poor value for money? Is it…… Property type Very good Fairly good Neither-nor Fairly poor Very poor Amenity/wheelchair 34.2% 57.9% 7.9% - - Terraced 37.8% 45.9% 12.6% 3.4% 0.3% Semi/detached 32.3% 48.0% 13.4% 3.9% 2.4% Flat 42.5% 36.8% 17.0% 3.8% - Four in a block 36.8% 38.4% 15.7% 7.0% 2.2% All types 37.1% 43.7% 13.9% 4.3% 1.1% Considering tenant profile/response (table 16), amongst the most positive tenants on rent value are those who can afford to heat their home (88.5% say rent is good value), and tenants who are aged 65 plus or retired (both 87.7%). The least positive on this measure are households who cannot afford to heat their home (66.1% say rent is good value), those who are neutral11 on this question (61.0%) and tenants who said their quality of housing was poor (46.8%). Table 16- Rating of rent value for money by tenant profile (base 750) Q- Taking into account the accommodation and the services the Council provides, to what extent do you think that the rent for this property represents good or poor value for money? Is it…… Tenant profile/response Very good Fairly good Neither-nor Fairly poor Very poor Can afford to heat home 45.8% 42.7% 8.9% 2.1% 0.5% 65 plus 47.0% 40.7% 8.9% 3.0% 0.4% Retired 46.2% 41.5% 9.7% 2.5% - Housing quality is good 41.0% 45.0% 11.8% 1.9% 0.3% Children in household 32.0% 50.5% 9.5% 6.0% 2.0% Two or more-person household 35.5% 46.1% 11.5% 5.8% 1.1% No children in household 39.3% 41.0% 15.3% 3.7% 0.7% Single person household 40.4% 39.4% 17.4% 1.8% 1.1% Employed 32.5% 47.3% 13.4% 6.1% 0.7% 35 to 44 34.8% 43.5% 13.0% 7.8% 0.9% 55 to 64 31.3% 46.5% 18.8% 2.1% 1.4% 16 to 34 33.0% 44.7% 16.5% 4.9% 1.0% Unable to work 41.7% 35.7% 15.7% 3.5% 3.5% 45 to 54 32.6% 44.4% 15.3% 5.6% 2.1% Other not working 26.8% 47.3% 19.6% 4.5% 1.8% Cannot afford to heat home 23.7% 42.4% 20.2% 10.6% 3.0% Housing quality (neutral) 23.7% 37.3% 33.9% 5.1% - Housing quality is poor 9.7% 37.1% 16.1% 27.4% 9.7% All profiles/responses 37.1% 43.7% 13.9% 4.3% 1.1% 11 Responded ‘neither satisfied nor dissatisfied’ on housing quality Page 288 of 390
Page 289
29 Improving value for money All tenants were asked to say what the Council should do to improve rent value. The results for this question are set out in figure 13 and show that providing a better repair service (13.7% of all tenants), reducing the level of rent increases (13.7%), and improving the inside of the home (11.9%) are the three main ways in which value for money could be improved. We would observe here that most tenants (51.1%) said that nothing needed to be improved about rent value whilst 10.8% responded ‘don’t know’. Figure 13 – Improving rent value for money (base 750) Q – What if anything should the Council do improve value for money? 2.0% 1.7% 6.4% 8.0% 9.1% 11.9% 13.7% 13.7% Other Reduce the amount of anti-social behaviour including problem neighbours Carry out more building maintenance e.g. painting, roughcasting etc. Improve/upgrade the external parts of my home e.g. common stairs, door entry systems, back courts Reduce the level of rent charged Improve/upgrade the inside of my home Reduce the amount of annual rent increases Provide a better repair service 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% 14.0% 16.0% Page 289 of 390
Page 290
30 Value for money - other/comments Fifteen tenants (2.0%) made a comment about rent value or said that something else needed to be changed and these comments were somewhat varied with examples provided below: Q – What if anything should the Council do improve value for money? (other/comments) ✓ Deal with draughts ✓ Deal with issues ✓ Draught proof my home ✓ Give me a smaller home ✓ Improve gates ✓ Just clean the gutters ✓ Listen to the tenants ✓ Make rents the same regardless of property size ✓ More maintenance around the area ✓ Provide energy saving checks ✓ Replace and fix things properly first time and don't just keep patching up repeatedly ✓ Sort gutters and deal with front door water ingress ✓ Would like the rent to stay same for a while. Page 290 of 390
Page 291
31 Neighbourhood management satisfaction Tenants were asked if they were satisfied or dissatisfied with how their landlord managed the neighbourhood they lived in. Table 17 shows that 85.5% of tenants are satisfied on this measure whilst 6.5% are dissatisfied. In 2019, 81.1% of tenants were satisfied with ‘neighbourhood management’ whilst the sector average in 2022 is 77.3%. We observe that neighbourhood management is the only comparable ARC indicator where the Council’s survey score in 2022 is higher than it was in the previous survey. Table 17 – Neighbourhood management (base 750) Q- Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the Council’s contribution to the management of the neighbourhood you live in? Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither-nor Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied 42.6% 42.9% 8.0% 4.5% 2.0% Neighbourhood management by town Table 18 illustrates neighbourhood management satisfaction by town and shows a fairly similar pattern of satisfaction with the highest figure for Mayfield 88.9% satisfied) and the lowest for Dalkeith (81.9%). Table 18 – Neighbourhood management (750) Q – Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the Council’s contribution to the management of the neighbourhood you live in? Town Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither-nor Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Mayfield 45.8% 43.1% 6.9% 4.2% - Penicuik 45.2% 42.9% 7.9% 1.6% 2.4% Loanhead 32.4% 54.9% 11.3% 1.4% - Other towns 36.3% 49.6% 6.7% 5.2% 2.2% Bonnyrigg 47.9% 37.2% 9.9% 4.1% 0.8% Gorebridge 47.6% 35.4% 4.9% 8.5% 3.7% Dalkeith 42.0% 39.9% 8.4% 6.3% 3.5% All towns 42.6% 42.9% 8.0% 4.5% 2.0% Improving the neighbourhood All tenants were asked to say what might improve their neighbourhood as a place to live. As illustrated in figure 14, the top five neighbourhood improvements are dealing with problem neighbours (9.5% of all tenants), tackling dog fouling (7.2%), maintaining trees, shrubs, and grass areas (6.5%), tackling drug use/drug dealing (5.6%), maintaining tenants’ gardens (5.1%). We would note here that 4.3% of tenants answered ‘don’t know’ to this question and approx. six in ten (58.8%) said that nothing needed to be improved about the neighbourhood. Page 291 of 390
Page 292
32 Figure 14 – Improving the neighbourhood (base 750) Q- In your view, what if anything, should be done to improve your neighbourhood as a place to live? Other neighbourhood issues Eighty one tenants (10.8%) identified another improvement to their neighbourhood and these comments and suggestions are supplied at annex 4 by town. These include for example: Q- In your view, what if anything, needs to be done to improve your neighbourhood as a place to live? ✓ A permit zone for parking ✓ CCTV to improve lighting 10.8% 0.4% 0.8% 0.8% 1.2% 1.5% 2.9% 3.1% 4.1% 4.5% 4.7% 5.1% 5.6% 6.5% 7.2% 9.5% Other Tackle racial/other harassment Limit storage in the common landings e.g. bikes, prams, mobility scooters etc. Have more communication with the neighbourhood and community Improve access to support services for tenants Modernise the bin stores Deal with fly tipping Deal with litter Improve parking Tackle youth disorder Improve how tenancies are managed Better maintain tenants' gardens Tackle drug use/drug dealing Maintain trees, shrubs and grass areas Tackle dog fouling Deal with problem neighbours 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% Page 292 of 390
Page 293
33 ✓ Improve parks etc ✓ Litter is a major problem - local shop kicks it aside rather than pick it up ✓ More for the kids to do ✓ Stop putting undesirables into the houses ✓ Waste ground at the side of house needs attention by owner. Page 293 of 390
Page 294
34 Annex 1 – improving overall satisfaction and related comments Q – What if anything should your landlord do to improve its overall service? (Other) Improvement comment Town Been waiting 4 years to get a door repair. I would like to adapt the bath and pay for it out my pocket. Why are we not allowed to do this? Bonnyrigg Better security in doors Bonnyrigg Dampness in bedroom Bonnyrigg Don't leave it to tenants to improve things; give us the house the way you'd expect it to be. There’s a kitchen door with asbestos on it Bonnyrigg I've not had my door number supplied and the spy hole is too high Bonnyrigg Improve the doors Bonnyrigg Improve the surrounding gardens Bonnyrigg Would like a move to a flat Bonnyrigg Potholes in the street need fixed Bonnyrigg Put ramp at door for my scooter Bonnyrigg Repair service is terrible Bonnyrigg Return phone calls Bonnyrigg The windows upstairs have not been repaired or replaced; they are blaming asbestos Bonnyrigg They came five years ago, did a botched repair, left it and never came back. You get sick of asking so they beat you into submission Hiding behind Covid. We get lip service then no upgrades. They just treat you like your stupid because you’re a women It seems to be the chosen one that get upgrades Bonnyrigg They made promises about getting upgraded 3 years ago and we are still waiting. We were all measured for window and still waiting. It always takes a long time to do anything Bonnyrigg To have my housing officer to do my introduction meeting Bonnyrigg We called about a repair before the pandemic and after, but Clerk of Works never gets back to you Bonnyrigg Address guttering at front of property Dalkeith Would like them to allocate me a new house due to my disability Dalkeith Allocation of housing should be improved Dalkeith Allocation of houses needs to be based on needs Dalkeith Anti-social behaviour near local shops and around neighbourhood needs sorter. Bins overflowing near residence Dalkeith Check TV aerials are working Dalkeith Could do with help with maintaining my garden due to age Dalkeith Housing doesn’t meet my family needs – move required Dalkeith I find it difficult to get a housing officer to get back to me about problem neighbours Dalkeith I will be writing to them today as I've not had any communication about my issue for 5 weeks Dalkeith I’m getting hounded for rent arrears and can't afford to live on minimum wage Dalkeith Issues with bins Dalkeith Urgently need house upgraded for my wife's health; it's affecting quality of life Dalkeith Collection of garden rubbish; now you have to pay but I don't agree with that Dalkeith Repairs need to be finished to a better standard Dalkeith Roads etc. need improved Dalkeith Still waiting on the cladding and not heard a thing as yet Dalkeith Temporary housing is a disgrace. Rather than do a disabled person’s garden they’d rather collect rent. Get the volunteers to help do the gardens, rather than plant trees Dalkeith The guttering is a safety concern as it's hanging off the bracket. We got new windows a year ago and they're not sealed properly; have called in about this but still waiting to hear back. Why do Dalkeith Page 294 of 390
Page 295
35 Improvement comment Town upgrades on doors and windows when they don't need replaced? Stop hiding behind Covid and provide a service We need a handrail for the steps Dalkeith We’re needing relocated; it's a noisy area Dalkeith You call the housing officer, but they don't reply. It's torture with just one neighbour, who wakes us up at all times of the day. We were told that the neighbour was evicted. Police not interested and I'm at the end of my tether; I just can't cope with it Dalkeith Kitchen upgrade required 4 years ago (still not done) Gorebridge A better maintenance service Gorebridge Bathroom tap needs repaired Gorebridge Bathroom window blown and kitchen door reported but no action in months. No letter received as indication of call and marital status has not been updated. Gorebridge Better maintenance Gorebridge Ceiling is falling down – needs repaired Gorebridge Changed the gas heating and destroyed a full cupboard in the kitchen. Removed floor in bedroom to see old boiler did not replace so now an open gap and have mice coming in through hole. Constant false promises of something that is never done Gorebridge Asked for window to be changed 2 years ago and nothing has been done Gorebridge Cheaper rent would be good Gorebridge Clean the guttering Gorebridge Dampness evident in bathroom ceiling Gorebridge Draughts and leaks from front and back doors. Clerk of works said she would have received compensation for the leak damage Gorebridge Draught in bedrooms and front door. Electrical fault with lighting called but no follow up Gorebridge Front door needs adjusted and dampness problem affecting my COPD. Said 3 years ago it would be sorted and still waiting. Wet room needs floor slanted to avoid flooding. Again, waiting on Clerk of Works visit or communication to see what's happening after plumber said it was a disaster Gorebridge Front door needs aligned Gorebridge Front door seal required Gorebridge Gutters are unsafe-need sorted Gorebridge Gutters leaking – need repaired Gorebridge Gutters need cleaned urgently Gorebridge Gutters need cleaned. Was informed that new windows would be installed after 25 yrs. now 26 yrs. and no information Gorebridge House is cold and has draughts Gorebridge Houses are falling apart. Fences are falling down, and junkies run through the gardens and that's just for starters. Full upgrade to kitchen was started in March and still not completed Gorebridge I've called twice to have my gutters cleaned but still waiting Gorebridge Infestation of woodwork in loft space for 2 years plus. I am in system since the Clerk of Work’s visit but no action. Most recent reminder was call to office who said they have it flagged Gorebridge Had leak in kitchen for past 4 yrs. Gorebridge Leaking pipe at rear of house and mist builds up; now have dampness on bathroom ceiling Gorebridge Still waiting on new windows and door upgrade Gorebridge No front or rear door seals and need a replacement letterbox Gorebridge Plumber explained that shower over 20 yrs. old so needs upgraded, and he would need to return with an electrician. Not had any reply from Council and my carers need to help me into shower. Worried it's just going to pack in altogether soon and will have nothing to use for washing Gorebridge They need better funding to help us. The windows that were not put in properly by the contractor and there was a bad attitude from the tradesman Gorebridge Page 295 of 390
Page 296
36 Improvement comment Town They're blaming Covid for lots of things that have not been done and it’s a lame excuse. Waiting on road to be sorted due to my disability Gorebridge Toilet leaks and external wall pipes; still waiting on Clerk of Works Gorebridge Unsafe gap at front entrance between slabs, large gap and growing. Also upturned edge on slab, dangerous trip hazard. Large gap at bottom of kitchen door (all need repaired) Gorebridge Water ingress through front doors; replacement door required as confirmed by Clerk of Works Gorebridge When you call in departments are hard to get a hold off .I put in an insurance claim in pre Covid and I am still waiting and can't get any answers Gorebridge Window is broken, ceiling leaks, and there are dogs in the communal garden Gorebridge Need new bin the lid as mine went missing so birds getting into it and making a mess Loanhead Fan on the ceiling not working but no-one has come to fix it. Bedroom window also loose Loanhead I have quite few repairs or snagging to be finished. Supervisor has been out, but they are not done yet Loanhead I just need a bigger house as we are very overcrowded Loanhead I need some help with my garden as I don't have tools or lawnmower Loanhead Reported repair last October and just had it fixed (nearly 12 months) Loanhead Street lighting needs improved Loanhead The only thing I have a problem with is the stair door it's very stiff and very hard to open Loanhead There has been a caravan parked at side of my house. People think it's mine but it's not sure what I can do about it Loanhead There is a lot of overgrown trees in neighbourhood; that needs some attention Loanhead Trees need cut back; have reported it several times Loanhead We moved in 20 months ago and there were a lot of things needing fixed; some have still not been done Loanhead It’s a nightmare to get repairs done. Better maintenance service needed Mayfield Come when I ask them to (repairs); and offer a quicker response time Mayfield Deal with mouse problem Mayfield Do repairs on time and do basic maintenance on the houses Mayfield Do the jobs that they're supposed to. They come out, but so things you don't ask for Mayfield During lockdown repairs were slow Mayfield Provide an easier way to get a hold of them. When you phone no one answers, and an emails are not replied to Mayfield Have better records about tenants. I am completely blind, and I have to keep telling them this and they still continue to send me letters in a format that is unsuitable Mayfield Make it easier to move home Mayfield Make it easier to move house Mayfield A better vetting system for tenants would be good Mayfield Stop cutting services and be more prompt on repairs Mayfield The garden service and one free run to the recycling centre a year; should bring this back Mayfield The house just needs a good upgrading Mayfield They don't maintain the property. They should put PVC in instead of timber on the woodwork. Do the maintenance and clean the gutters Mayfield We have junkies above who are noisy. The intercom doesn't work or the front door so you can't buzz anyone in. HO is meant send out letters. You leave HO voice mails, and she never gets back to you Mayfield We need a bath not a wet room Mayfield When I got this house I had to wait a year to get the kitchen. It’s as though they have no compassion, and you just don't count. The first 4 months we couldn't live in it but still had to pay rent Mayfield Page 296 of 390
Page 297
37 Improvement comment Town Big vans parked with rubbish in them and don't move for weeks. Also, the gardens around here are a disgrace Other town Clerk of works was here 3 months ago but had no follow up and there's a lot of the snagging to be repaired. There's a hole been dug in the car park and it’s dangerous; nothing done about for ages Other town Fix the dampness in house Other town Front window and fan in kitchen have been reported but have been waiting over two years now and nothing’s been done Other town Gutters need cleaned Other town Gutters need cleaned out and I reported my patio doors (rain comes in). Kitchen is falling apart and rotten so a lot that needs seen to Other town Had a repair done a couple of times to the seal of my bath but it has not worked. Seal has broken again so obviously not done properly Other town Have the gardens trimmed and keep the area kept tidy Other town I have been waiting ages to get my front step repaired Other town I need a ramp for my mobility scooter Other town I need my central heating upgraded but the housing officer knows and is dealing with it Other town When I moved in, house interior wasn’t in great condition for age of house Other town Make house moves easier. They charged me £465 to move my furniture Other town Make it easier to move home Other town Neighbours park over my drive and I can't get out without knocking on their door and this is causing me stress Other town Since Covid repairs have been much slower Other town Some of the gardens are like Steptoe’s Yard – need to be kept tidier Other town Stop using Covid as an excuse Other town The upgrade to our house is just about to start on the outside of house Other town Threatening me to remove tenancy when I am disabled and in an adapted house because of my grass needing to be cut. They could offer grass cutting service Other town Vet the tenants before housing them Other town We have only been in house 6 months and have been told that we can't get any repairs fixed until we have been here a year. So we have had to do all repairs ourselves Other town We've had dampness but it took 2years to sort out. We were left with no hot water for two years as they wouldn't fix the boiler and needed to sort it out. We need a three bedroom house, but the council say it's acceptable for a boy and girl to share a room Other town When phoning you get the automated answer asking who you want to be put through to, then no one picks up the phone. Been in house 10 years. Had 3 joiners in; one made it worse, and one put a seal round it . It’s as though the council doesn't care about Pathhead. They could do a lot better than they do with these houses. The house is cold it needs better insulation Other town A quicker repair service Penicuik Back fence is falling down and steps in pathway need repairing Penicuik They don't maintain the houses properly. They give you a nice new boiler but don't give you new radiators Penicuik Been waiting on new front door for 6 years. The windows were meant to be all renewed and have not been done. Should look after the properties that people pay the rent to be in Penicuik Stop doing cheap repairs that don’t last; they don't look into what really needs done Penicuik Come back and finish the jobs started Penicuik Come out when they are asked to come out Penicuik Do the repairs that they're meant to do in a timely manner. Clean and look after the neighbourhood Penicuik Employ better companies for repairs and upgrades Penicuik Page 297 of 390
Page 298
38 Improvement comment Town Fix the stair lighting; 2 years since it's been done Penicuik Get better trades who turn up and do the job. We asked for the gutters to be cleaned over a year ago and still blaming Covid is an excuse Penicuik Have a more pro-active repair service Penicuik Give feedback. We had someone looking at the roof more than once as things fall off, but nothing been done Penicuik My hand was forced by the council. I was in private rent, and they put me into this council house when I have acute health problems. They don't look after the houses. I keep getting told there's a housing officer coming out, but no one turns up. I’m left in limbo and the house is damp Penicuik I got 16 slates at least missing and it’s causing leaks in the roof. A sunken floorboard in the hallway is made from mdf. This house is depressing me. I've left voice mails, but no one calls back Penicuik I have an upstairs neighbour that needs to agree to pay to get a communal repairs done, and they will not help so I'm stuck. One of these days the window will collapse Penicuik I've stopped calling them out and pay to get it done myself Penicuik Improve the street cleaning Penicuik The fact that there so few rent payers in the area. My daughter lives with me and her child because she can't get a house. We are both working full time. We enquired about a few empty houses in the area and was told no and a drug addict got it Penicuik There's lots of stuff needing sorted Penicuik Page 298 of 390
Page 299
39 Annex 2 – improving housing quality satisfaction and related comments Q – What if anything should your landlord do to provide you with a better quality home? (Other) Improvement comment Town Better repairs Bonnyrigg Complete the outstanding repairs on the house Bonnyrigg Do a better service and do not use cowboys that leave a botched housing i.e., use plastic covering when you can rattle the wall Bonnyrigg Doors and walls Bonnyrigg Doors inside house need improved Bonnyrigg Doors internal/ fence needs done Bonnyrigg Fit ramp Bonnyrigg Fix my front door Bonnyrigg Floorboards needs replaced Bonnyrigg Improve the floor Bonnyrigg Internal doors and external doors Bonnyrigg Loft hatch has no insulation Bonnyrigg Lots of plastering on the walls needs fixed Bonnyrigg New gates Bonnyrigg Outside needs improved Bonnyrigg Painting doors Bonnyrigg Problems with beetles Bonnyrigg Repair outside to roughcast Bonnyrigg The fence; they will not repair it saying it's not bad enough Bonnyrigg The wiring is a bit dated Bonnyrigg A stair lift to go up the stairs would help Dalkeith Another neighbour flooded us and during the pandemic and it's still not been repaired Dalkeith Better repairs service and reduced the time it takes to complete a repair Dalkeith Better standard of repairs Dalkeith Better storage and a better sized kitchen Dalkeith Bigger kitchen Dalkeith Building feels like it’s subsiding Dalkeith Communal light needed Dalkeith Electrics keep tripping so should be rewired. Cracked window was put in and was never fixed after 2 years Dalkeith Fix wall damage they have left after door being replaced Dalkeith House should be upgraded for people with disabilities Dalkeith Mould unresolved and leaks in roof Dalkeith Need a bigger home Dalkeith Need new front and back steps Dalkeith New windows are draughty and a mess Dalkeith New windows aren’t great at keeping draughts out Dalkeith New windows need fixed Dalkeith Plasterboard in rooms need replaced Dalkeith Provide handrails at gate and front door Dalkeith Rendering is poor Dalkeith Repairs still outstanding Dalkeith Roof needs fixed Dalkeith Page 299 of 390
Page 300
40 Improvement comment Town The shower tray leaks into the kitchen ceiling Dalkeith The water pipe drips making the house damp Dalkeith They could put in new doors Dalkeith They give you a shell and I've done it up by myself Dalkeith Unsafe fire doors Dalkeith Back door draughts through new door and large puddle after heavy rain. Clerk of Works said he would solve problems urgently 5 weeks ago but no communication since. Dangerous due to my health and poor mobility Gorebridge Better wiring as lots of sockets don't work Gorebridge Broken window needs repaired plus expecting new windows, but no communication Gorebridge Ceilings all cracked. Roof been leaking for years as roof tiles missing Windows have also been an issue since they were replaced Gorebridge Clean the gutters and the extension needs insulating Gorebridge Constant kitchen repairs and infestation. Rear door has water ingress after new door fitted. Survey after door fitted but no feedback Gorebridge Door needs aligned Gorebridge Doors need adjusted and there’s mould in bedrooms Gorebridge Draughts sorted Gorebridge Floorboards need nailed down Gorebridge Front door Gorebridge Front door has condensation and needs adjusted Gorebridge Front door has failed glass units and back fence collapses with strong winds Gorebridge It's the drive; it's too steep in both directions Gorebridge Kitchen plus bathroom taps broken and dripping. Solar panel bangs when high winds and leaks Gorebridge Lack of communication from Clerk of Works. Need visit urgently to prevent further infestation Gorebridge Large gap at bottom of kitchen door Gorebridge Need draught from doors fixed Gorebridge Never returned with replacement doors and not replaced flooring damaged by flood from neighbour. Kitchen window seals need replaced; wasting money constantly by repairing existing seal Gorebridge New front and doors Gorebridge New front door Gorebridge No communication plus draughts from front and back door Gorebridge Poor quality walls, no sound proofing to hotel standard. Can hear neighbours talk, back door draughts Gorebridge Shower leaked before pandemic and still not actioned; only have bath no shower Gorebridge The bathroom drainage is so slow it backs up and floods. The house drainage is not good at all Gorebridge Toilet smell from drains; has open access at pipe in sewage system and poor water pressure in bath. Need heating adjusted as too hot and need to be able to switch off Gorebridge Toilet system only held in with screws into plaster board; no fixings Gorebridge Waited 4 yrs. People promise to return but just don't come back. Housing Officer does not reply to communication Gorebridge Wardrobe doors are falling off and need shower replaced. Also the floorboards need attention Gorebridge Water damage caused ceiling problems but still not fixed after2 yrs. Back door seal not good; attempted repair but not any better Gorebridge Woodwork infestation in loft; not actioned. Loft not inspected after last tenant, so their belongings still in loft, plus no wall hanging cupboards in kitchen Gorebridge Front door very stiff but these are barely new house Loanhead Gutters need cleaned out; when it rains all the rubbish falls out Loanhead Have reported my floorboards sinking in place and waiting on the to replace them Loanhead Page 300 of 390
Page 301
41 Improvement comment Town I have mould in bathroom; has been reported but not fixed Loanhead I love my home but it's just too small Loanhead New homes but something's are still snagging Loanhead The bin store is not big enough for all the bins in stair they end up all over the street Loanhead Upgrade external door Loanhead Upgrade floors Loanhead Bathroom needs done Mayfield Do the gardens; it's their responsibility Mayfield Do the upgrades quicker Mayfield External front door Mayfield I've done it all the improvements myself; it was terrible when I moved Mayfield I've paid to get a lot repaired myself Mayfield New internal doors Mayfield New windows and doors Mayfield Patio doors need replaced Mayfield The cold comes up through the floorboards. We have slaters coming up as well Mayfield The guttering fell down; they came, took it away and it's not been replaced Mayfield The new builds seem to get priority over older buildings that need maintaining Mayfield Bathroom sills are coming away; this has been reported but still waiting Other town Bedroom is too small. No broadband signal. TV aerial doesn't work and plug sockets are all loose Other town Better repair service would help Other town Clean gutters please Other town Couple of outstanding repairs Other town Had temporary repair done to bathroom floor during Covid but they never came back Other town Hopefully we will be getting upgrades soon Other town I feel my house is falling to bits; have reported several times but nothing is done Other town I have phoned the council on several occasions, but they just fob you off and never come and do the repairs, so I end up doing them myself or just leaving it Other town I need a bigger house and one away from this area; it's all drug dealers and anti-social idiots Other town I think this house has asbestos in the lift. Council have been out and done nothing so am waiting on the environmental health people to come and have a look; the whole house is falling apart Other town I've had a new door and from day one it has not been right with a big gap at bottom. Council have been back on a number of occasions but still have a leak and wind whistling through house. I concerned for the winter Other town I've reported plugs not working but no one has come to fix them Other town Improve external doors and stop water coming in the front door Other town Improve the upgrades. In the loft the truss straps are coming loose; they all need fixing Other town Internal doors. Back garden drains Other town Leak needs fixed Other town Let me put a shower in. I applied for a shower to put that my own expense by email in October 2020, but I have had no reply Other town New doors needed Other town Not having a shared garden Other town Our side needs painting, plus new garden fences Other town Pipes outside are leaking; had Clerk of Works round but nothing happening Other town Previous smoker left stains and smells Other town Repair needed to my bathroom; workers meant to come but never heard from them Other town Page 301 of 390
Page 302
42 Improvement comment Town Reported a leak in toilet over 2 years ago and still not fixed. Toilet started to leak this January; Inspector has been out to see it but still no repair, so it is now a much bigger job, and it smells Other town Roof needs repair; have reported but nothing done Other town The snagging list needs done, and the back door hinge has popped making it a real struggle to close the door properly Other town There's blocked drainage in the back garden. Covid seems to be an excuse not to contact; they are very slow at returning calls Other town They are fairly new houses but it's just a pity that they didn't vet the tenements better can be very hectic some days Other town Walls are crumbling Other town 18 years I've been complaining about the roof and still nothing done Penicuik Cracks in walls Penicuik External doors need improved Penicuik External doors need replaced. Back garden floods every winter. They try to repair the gutters, but the problem is the rainwater comes into the house causing dampness Penicuik Fix a crack in the wall and the doors and skirting need up grading Penicuik Fix the pitch roof Penicuik Front pitch needs replaced Penicuik Have wall units in the kitchen Penicuik Holes in the floor need fixed Penicuik Replace the porch. External drainage system needs replaced. Workmen have been out to clear the drains in my garden as they keep blocking and they have said the drains under the ground are cracked; the one under my kitchen window has already been condemned Penicuik Roof has been leaking for over 3 years Penicuik Solar panels don't work Penicuik The dampness has been fixed 3 times but there is still damp Penicuik The garden needs sorted. With my medical problems I should have no more than 2 steps into the property, and I have 6 Penicuik The house is looking a bit tired Penicuik The rain is causing the windowsill to collapse. We need the walls plastered and I've waited that long because the Clerk of Works has not given the ok Penicuik There's a strange cupboard in the house; no reason why it's there Penicuik You call up and they send an email to the Clerk of Works, but nothing ever gets done Penicuik Page 302 of 390
Page 303
43 Annex 3 – Improvement to repair service and related comments Q – How should your landlord improve its repair service? (other) Improvement comment Town Had to complain to a manager as chasing to get work done; a month without a shower Bonnyrigg Listen to the public and take your time; this is my home Bonnyrigg The gutters all need cleaned Bonnyrigg Better follow up from Clerk of Works Dalkeith More checks could be done on the property Dalkeith More qualified and equipped workers Dalkeith Roof has been leaking for 3 years and never gets fixed properly Dalkeith Still waiting to get it repaired; been ongoing 3 years Dalkeith Boiler leaked, floor damaged and just left without comment for me to deal with Gorebridge Dampness and condensation in bathroom area, and bedroom wall saturation. Advice was to have air venting via loft to solve problems, but Clerk of Works advice was to keep bathroom window closed when showering; does not make sense Gorebridge Do the maintenance better and catch up Gorebridge Finish the job that they start Gorebridge Just better maintenance of the property needed Gorebridge Leak in pipe fixed on one visit but now leaking again. Called and no answer as to when visit will happen Gorebridge Plumber came twice about drain blockage and still not heard back from them Gorebridge Repaired dampness but waiting to see if returns Gorebridge Seal around bath didn't work Gorebridge Settlement issues plus poor quality extractor fan in bathroom. Poo quality grass all over and bald patches Gorebridge Slow to action with a repair; need to be quicker Gorebridge The list of what they say is an emergency is not what we say is an emergency; it's very limited Gorebridge We have brown doors, and one was replaced with a white one, so I had to paint the rest white Gorebridge Gutters need cleaned Loanhead Lots of things needing done; and lots of snagging still to be done Loanhead Be more prompt at turning up Mayfield Boiler broke down after 2months – repair quality Mayfield Just get the jobs done Mayfield Replace door as opposed to just patching up Mayfield Turn up and do them. Put a handle on the front door so you can pull it shut in the way out The shower sometimes cuts out due to water pressure Mayfield Use qualified tradesmen not labourers Mayfield Better customer service training with repair contractors; they were not friendly Other town Quite hard to get through to them sometimes Other town Sort outstanding repair; had for over a year Other town They didn't do all that was in the worksheet Other town Actually do the repairs. Come into the house; stop using Covid is an excuse Penicuik Don't do patch up works Penicuik Have a portal or online service to report repairs Penicuik Page 303 of 390
Page 304
44 Annex 4 – improving the neighbourhood and related comments Q – What if anything should be done to improve your neighbourhood? (Other) Improvement Town Better weeding and sort the potholes Bonnyrigg Cut hedges so they don't cover the pavement as I'm blind. The back roads all need fixing Bonnyrigg Deal with rats Bonnyrigg Get residents to lift the rubbish Bonnyrigg Get the local Police station up and running Bonnyrigg Improve roads Bonnyrigg Improve roads and pavements Bonnyrigg Improve traffic at lunch time Bonnyrigg Lamppost has been out for weeks; it needs sorted Bonnyrigg Lift the grass after it’s been cut Bonnyrigg Litter from the school, barking dogs and noisy neighbours Bonnyrigg Potholes need repaired Bonnyrigg Provide dog bins for dog poo Bonnyrigg Rats need dealt with Bonnyrigg Something for the kids Bonnyrigg Vandalism is rife Bonnyrigg A permit zone for parking Dalkeith CCTV and improve lighting Dalkeith Come and do the gardens Dalkeith Deal with noise and parties and general antisocial behaviour Dalkeith Improve parks etc. Dalkeith Make parking in one side only. We had a road sweeper before, and it was good not know Dalkeith More for kids Dalkeith More speed bumps Dalkeith Put up CCTV cameras Dalkeith Scrap yard at end of road treats our street as his car park; unsightly and full of scrap Dalkeith Take out grass area and use it for parking Dalkeith They got rid of road sweepers; being them back Dalkeith Birds in roof void; should check nesting sites Gorebridge Dog barking Gorebridge Even with paying for off road parking, there's still problems as people block access Gorebridge Fires in nearby fields by youth and motorbikes through estate are very dangerous Gorebridge Kids from Caldwell estate running riot. Aged 10-15, pulling down newly planted trees and throwing dog mess at doors; total vandalism, but no action. No presence don't care. Police simply pass by. Kids taking pics of their vandalism and putting it on tick tock Gorebridge Litter a major problem as local shop kicks it aside rather than pick it up Gorebridge Local youth leave litter for us to uplift Gorebridge Major dog mess problem Gorebridge Major problem with dog mess; need bins and cameras. Plus speed bumps as traffic comes off A7 road like a racetrack; very dangerous as lots of small children playing in street Gorebridge More for the kids to do Gorebridge Need to pick up moss all over front steps from gutters which need cleaned out urgently Gorebridge New neighbour purchased adjoining property and put all his rubbish over fence into my garden,. Called council to witness wire sticking out of fence that was cut by neighbour as it was sticking out Gorebridge Page 304 of 390
Page 305
45 Improvement Town into the lane and dangerous but no action by Council; they don't care. Neighbour was abusive and disrespectful when I spoke to them People in other streets using parking spaces outside my home. Nurses cannot gain access easily with equipment; could remove some green space to replace with parking to solve problem Gorebridge Public deposit debris in fence at front of house Gorebridge Roads are bad Gorebridge Speeding cars; needs looked at Gorebridge Speeding drivers; needs sorted Gorebridge Streetlights need fixed Gorebridge Waste ground at side of house needs attention Gorebridge Bins sometimes don't get uplifted Loanhead School parking is a nightmare Loanhead More police patrols Mayfield None of the streetlights work Mayfield Pathways need better maintained Mayfield Speeding drivers; put in speed reducing measures Mayfield Stop putting in undesirables Mayfield The drains are shocking. Have to keep contacting them about the drains which block and flood. There's trees blocking the light to the house, and it blocks my sky signal Mayfield The road is more like a main road so it's noisy; need to slow down the drivers. Kids on dirt bikes in the area; you report it, but nothing gets done. Also, dogs barking Mayfield They only do things if you complain enough Mayfield We need dog waste bins Mayfield Better lighting Other town Better parks etc. Other town Clean up the weeds Other town Had a blocked drain on the street for ages causing floods when there's heavy rainfall Other town More area maintenance; just left a big hole in the road it's dangerous Other town More for children and teenagers. Community centres/ youth clubs Other town Speeding in street and concerned with small children Other town The way they cut the grass is poor Other town There's one family that have caused severe disruption to the village Other town Anti-social behaviour with mental health problems (should be dealt with) Penicuik Better lighting Penicuik Doing lip service but nothing gets done. Get back to normal working Penicuik Garden services need to do a better job Penicuik Get the tenants to sort their gardens Penicuik Improve street cleaning Penicuik Stop brining the riff raff into the area; vet who's getting property Penicuik The alleyway is a pest with people littering in it Penicuik There's potholes and uneven pavements Penicuik Things for the youth to do Penicuik Things to attend e.g. hobbies, interests skills Penicuik Weeds in the roads and paths needs dealt with Penicuik Page 305 of 390
Page 306
46 Annex 5 – Making the home easier to heat and related comments Q – How could your landlord help you heat your home more easily (other) Comment Allow us to have a direct debit not a pay card Deal with dampness Fix the solar panels Fix whatever is causing the dampness Help subsidise bills Help to reduce our bills Help lower our bills Help with bills Insulate the ground floors It's the downstairs needs sorted as it's always cold Just need financial support for bills Need financial help Offer financial support with bills Provide financial support for bills Radiators are very poor Repair draughts from pipe work areas Roof was leaking and it damaged insulation so this should be fixed Sort downstairs: it is freezing Sort out the dampness Sort water ingress in front door and carry out window replacement The house is damp-needs dealt with The radiators are not energy efficient The roof is a problem for heating Twisted plate under boiler and boiler door broken. Man at maintenance check said he would report it, but not heard anything since Use better quality radiators as using cheap is false economy Page 306 of 390
Page 307
0 Tenant Satisfaction Survey 2022 Survey Report MIDLOTHIAN COUNCIL HOUSING SERVICE October 4, 2022 Authored by: Alan Kennedy, Knowledge Partnership Page 307 of 390
Page 308
1 CONTENTS Summary of key satisfaction results Page 1 Executive summary Page 2-6 Introduction Page 7-10 Overall tenant satisfaction Page 11-15 Housing quality satisfaction Page 16-19 Repair service Page 20-23 Information, participation, and contact Page 24-26 Rent value for money Page 27-30 Neighbourhood management satisfaction Page 31-33 Page 308 of 390
Page 309
1 TABLE A - SUMMARY OF KEY SATISFACTION RESULTS FROM TENANT SATISFACTION SURVEY 2022 ARC indicator number Measure % tenants very and fairly satisfied 2019 (700 cases) % tenants very and fairly satisfied 2022 (750 cases) Council housing average since April 20201 Indicator Survey method Face to face Face to face Mixed methods Indicator 1 Satisfaction with Midlothian Council’s overall service 84.4% 81.5% 79.6% Indicator 2 Satisfaction with being kept informed about services and decisions 85.0% 80.1% 80.8% Indicator 5 Satisfaction with opportunities to participate in decision making 81.6% 77.9% 74.8% Indicator 7 Satisfaction with quality of home 83.7% 83.9% 77.2% Indicator 12 Satisfaction with repairs in last year 82.4% 72.4% 91.2%2 Indicator 13 Satisfaction with contribution of Midlothian Council to management of neighbourhood 81.1% 85.5% 77.3% Indicator 25 Rating of rent as very good or fairly good value for money 84.4% 80.8% 79.1% 1 Based on a sample of approx. 20,000 council tenants surveyed across 18 Landlords since April 2020 - weighted average (source SHR) 2 Includes transactional repairs satisfaction data which is generally more positive than TSS data Page 309 of 390
Page 310
2 Executive Summary This tenant satisfaction survey was carried out by Knowledge Partnership on behalf of Midlothian Council’s Housing Service (the Council) using an interviewer led face to face questionnaire. The survey was administered between August 3rd 2022 and September 17th 2022 and by the conclusion of the survey period, 750 tenants had completed a survey, representing 41.6% of all sampled tenants. Overall satisfaction ➢ Taking everything into account, 81.5% of Council tenants are satisfied with services overall in 2022 whilst 11.7% are dissatisfied. In 2019, 84.4% of tenants were satisfied overall whilst the Scottish council social housing average is currently 79.6%3. ➢ Analysis of the responses for overall tenant satisfaction by property style illustrates some degree of variation, e.g. 92.1% of tenants living in amenity homes are satisfied overall, which contrasts with the views of those living in four in a block, where 77.8% are satisfied overall. ➢ Tenant satisfaction by household size and composition shows that smaller households (86.5% satisfied), and those who do not have children at home (83.1%) tend to be more satisfied overall than larger households (78.2% satisfied), and those that do have children in the home (76.5%). ➢ Amongst the most positive tenants in terms of overall satisfaction are those who are aged 65 plus (89.9% satisfied), tenants who are retired (89.9%), or those who receive full rent payment (84.5%). Conversely, the tenants who are least satisfied include younger tenants e.g., those aged 16-34 (76.6% satisfied) or tenants who are ‘other not working’4 (69.7%). ➢ Although we cannot say for certain that this scenario applies to the Council’s result for overall satisfaction we have observed in other recent tenant satisfaction surveys that a tenant’s experience of service delivery and support during lockdown has a bearing on how they respond to the question of overall satisfaction i.e. where the tenant said they were satisfied with lockdown service delivery/support, an above average proportion of these tenants were also satisfied with housing services overall; the opposite applies in the case of tenants who were dissatisfied with services and support during lockdown. This lockdown effect may be one explanation for the 3% point reduction in the Council’s overall satisfaction figure compared to 2019. Housing quality ➢ Most tenants (83.9%) are satisfied with housing quality (8.3% are dissatisfied). The 2022 figure for satisfaction is very similar to 2019 (83.7% satisfied) but is ahead of the sector average (77.2%). ➢ In relation to tenant profile, satisfaction with housing quality is highest amongst tenants who are aged 65 plus or retired (both 91.6% satisfied) or within single person households (87.6%). Conversely, satisfaction is lowest amongst households containing children (77.5%), tenants aged 35 to 44 (76.5%), and those who are ‘other not working’ (75.0%). ➢ There is some amount variation in satisfaction with housing quality by property type i.e. amenity/wheelchair (89.4% satisfied) and semi/detached (86.6%), compared to four in a block (81.6%), and flats (77.4%). ➢ Housing quality satisfaction is highest for tenants living in smaller homes, e.g., 1 bed properties (92.8% satisfied), and lowest for those living 4 or more bed homes (69.2%) ➢ Around six in ten tenants (64.4%) said that there home was energy efficient whereas 25.9% said this was not the case and 9.7% did not know. In relation to heating, approx. half of tenants (50.9%) said they could afford to heat 3 Based on a sample of approx. 20,000 tenants surveyed across 18 Landlords since April 2020 - weighted average (source SHR) 4 Carers, job seekers, stay at home parents and those in education/training Page 310 of 390
Page 311
3 their home whilst more than one in four (26.4%) said they could not afford to heat their home (22.7% said ‘don’t know’). ➢ Analysis of the impact of ‘heating the home’ on tenants’ views of housing quality illustrates that where a tenant can afford to heat their home, 92.4% are satisfied with housing quality whereas in the case of tenants who cannot afford to heat their home, housing quality drops to 66.7%. ➢ Tenants who found it difficult to afford to heat their home said that their landlord could assist them by improving windows (42.9%), improving doors (30.3%), and by better insulating their home (23.2%). Repairs service ➢ Amongst tenants whose homes have been repaired in the last year, 72.4% are satisfied with the last repair whilst 19.3% are dissatisfied. In 2019, satisfaction with repairs was 82.4%, whilst the sector average (which includes landlords’ transactional repairs data) is 91.2%. ➢ In terms of property type, the most satisfied tenants by property type are those living in four in a block house formats (85.9%) whilst satisfaction for those living in flats is much lower at 65.0%. ➢ Assessing repair service satisfaction by the tenant’s economic status indicates that the most satisfied tenants in terms of repairs carried out in the last year are those who are unable to work (77.8% satisfied), or retired (77.5%), whilst the least satisfied tenants are those who are working (66.6%). ➢ Analysis of repair service satisfaction by period (within the last year) shows that tenants with repairs that were completed up to two months ago are more satisfied (75.9%) than those whose homes have received repairs in an earlier period. This may suggest that repair service satisfaction has been improving across the Council during the last 12 months. Information, participation, and committee awareness ➢ In 2022, 80.1% of tenants rated ‘being kept informed’ as good, whilst 13.1% said that Council was poor on this measure (and 6.8% replied ‘neither good nor poor’). Tenant satisfaction with being kept informed is somewhat lower than the 2019 survey (85.0% saying good). The council sector average for this figure in 2022 is 80.8%. ➢ Approx. eight in ten tenants (77.9%) are satisfied with opportunities to participate whilst 12.3% are dissatisfied on this measure. In 2019, 81.6% were satisfied whilst the current sector average for tenant participation is 74.8%. ➢ Satisfaction on the participation aspect of the housing service varies by tenant profile ranging from 85.1% for tenants who are retired to 66.0% for tenants aged 16-34. Lower satisfaction amongst the Council’s younger tenants may indicate a lack of awareness/interest in this aspect of the Council’s housing service i.e., 16.5% of tenants aged 16-34 answered ‘neither satisfied nor dissatisfied’ for this question. ➢ Most tenants (55.5%) are not particularly interested in getting involved in giving their views to their landlord. Where tenants do wish to give their views, use of surveys is the most popular method. Contact and communication ➢ Tenants’ preferences for contacting Council in the future are principally telephone i.e. mobile (63.9%) and landline (29.1%). Digital methods e.g. email (14.1%) and text (10.9%) are also popular with tenants as ways of contacting Council. Most tenants prefer to be kept informed by their landlord by means of letter (58.8%), telephone (43.7%), email (21.5%), and letter (19.5%). Page 311 of 390
Page 312
4 Rent ➢ Eight in ten tenants (80.8%) rate rent as good value for money, whilst 5.4% say that rent is poor value (and 13.9% answered ‘neither good nor poor’ value). In 2019, 84.4% rated rent as good value, whilst the 2022 Council sector average is 79.1%. ➢ Analysis by property size shows that tenants living in one bed homes are the most positive on this measure (87.6% say rent is good value), whilst the least positive are those tenants who live in four or more bed homes (76.9%). ➢ In relation to property type, those living in amenity/wheelchair adapted homes (92.1% say ‘good value’) are the most likely to say that rent is good value for money whilst the least likely to rate rent value as good are tenants living in four in a block properties (75.2%). ➢ Considering tenant profile, amongst the most positive tenants on rent value are those who can afford to heat their home (88.5% say rent is good value), and tenants who are aged 65 plus or retired (both 87.7%). The least positive on this measure are households who cannot afford to heat their home (66.1% say rent is good value), those who are neutral5 on this question (61.0%) and tenants who said their housing quality was poor (46.8%). Neighbourhoods ➢ Most tenants, (85.5%) are satisfied with neighbourhood management whilst 6.5% are dissatisfied. In 2019, 81.1% of tenants were satisfied with ‘neighbourhood management’ whilst the sector average in 2022 is 77.3%. We observe that neighbourhood management is the only comparable ARC indicator where the council’s 2022 survey score is higher than it was in the previous survey. Conclusions The 2022 tenant satisfaction survey indicates that the majority of tenants (81.5%) are satisfied with the overall service they receive from their landlord but that satisfaction in general has declined since 2019, and that some of this decline is likely in part to be explained by the enduring effect of lockdown service delivery on the views of a minority of tenants. Possible areas for further investigation Whist a majority of tenants have expressed satisfaction with the housing service they receive from the Council, a minority have identified some dissatisfaction and based on the tenant feedback in these and other areas, we would propose the following as having potential for further investigation. − Considering what actions might improve the Council’s service overall, the three main improvements are: o Providing a better repair service (20.0% of all tenants) o Improving the inside of the home (12.3%) o Improving communication (6.5%). − On improving housing quality, the three main improvement items are: o Improving windows (14.8% of all tenants) o Improving the bathroom (14.5%) 5 Responded ‘neither satisfied nor dissatisfied’ on housing quality Page 312 of 390
Page 313
5 o Improving the kitchen (12.9%) . − Additionally, on the matter of housing quality, making it easier for tenants to heat their home by improving windows, improving doors, and providing better internal insulation. − From the perspective of property repairs, the three main areas for improvement are: o Reducing the time it takes to start a repair (23.2% of all tenants) o Reducing the time it takes to complete a repair (18.1%) o Make it easier to report a repair (12.2%). − Considering rent value for money, the three main suggestions for improving rent value are: o Providing a better repair service (13.7% of all tenants) o Reducing the level of rent increases (13.7%) o Improving the inside of the home (11.9%). − In relation to keeping tenants informed on services and decisions, we note that more than one in ten tenants (13.1%) rate this aspect of services as poor and that this is a higher level of dissatisfaction than the Scottish Council average (10.0% in 2022). We consider that part of the reason for this outcome is dissatisfaction around repairs or upgrades communication/information i.e. for those tenants who were dissatisfied with their last property repair, more than one in three (35.7%) said that being kept informed was poor. We also detect in the comments that tenants made about overall improvement that there is some dissatisfaction relating to a lack of follow up information when dealing with the service. − The three main improvements that tenants are seeking in relation to neighbourhood management are: o Deal better with problem neighbours (9.5% of all tenants) o Tackling dog fouling (7.2%) o Maintaining trees, shrubs, and grass areas (6.5%). − Finally, we observe that the repair service features in a number of improvement areas e.g. as an improvement item relating to overall service, as a value for money improvement, as an element of dissatisfaction with information provision, and as part of the comments made by tenants in relation to housing quality improvement. − Figure A below shows the association between satisfaction with the maintenance service and overall satisfaction i.e. as repairs/maintenance service satisfaction moves from very satisfied to very dissatisfied so the satisfaction with the Council’s overall housing service declines i.e., in the case of those tenants who were very satisfied with their last property repair, 92.0% were also satisfied with the housing service overall. In contrast, where the tenant is dissatisfied with their last property repair, overall satisfaction with the housing service is 35.1%. In figure A, those tenants who are dissatisfied with their last property repair represent 15.1% of all the tenants shown, and therefore, the impact of their view on overall satisfaction with the housing service is fairly significant. Page 313 of 390
Page 314
6 Figure A – all repairs Q- Overall satisfaction with housing services compared to satisfaction with last property repair 53.8% 19.3% 15.7% 7.7% 10.8% 35.1% 38.2% 63.9% 55.7% 46.2% 24.3% 46.4% 4.7% 4.8% 14.3% 10.8% 13.5% 6.4% 2.4% 7.8% 8.6% 21.5% 18.9% 6.8% 3.6% 5.7% 13.8% 32.4% 4.9% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither-nor Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Overall Overall satisfaction Repair satisfaction Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither-nor Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied No opinion Page 314 of 390
Page 315
7 Introduction This tenant satisfaction survey was carried out by Knowledge Partnership on behalf of Midlothian Council’s Housing Service (the Council) using an interviewer led face to face questionnaire. The survey was administered between August 3rd 2022 and September 17th 2022. Survey sampling and survey response The survey sampling frame comprised a stratified random sample of 1,875 tenant properties drawn from a population comprising all housing units (being 6,536 properties). Face to face (door to door) interviewing took place using a proportionate sampling method whereby interviews were administered according to factors such as location, number of bedrooms, property type etc. The adjusted survey response rate based on completing 750 interviews is 41.6%; this excludes 72 tenants who asked to be withdrawn from the interview process at the pre-survey stage6. Property and location profile Property type As illustrated in table B, most interviews were carried out with tenants living in mid-terraced homes (22.8%); this compares to 23.6% of all tenants living in this type of property. Table B – Survey sample by property type Property type Interviews % interviews Property type Stock % stock House Mid Terrace 171 22.8% House Mid Terrace 1,541 23.6% House End Terrace 123 16.4% House End Terrace 1,106 16.9% House Semi Detached 117 15.6% House Semi Detached 1,039 15.9% Four In Block Upper 94 12.5% Four In Block Upper 731 11.2% Four In Block Ground 91 12.1% Four In Block Ground 797 12.2% Flat - Stair Ground 43 5.7% Flat - Stair Ground 326 5.0% Flat - Stair 1St Flr 40 5.3% Flat - Stair 1St Flr 356 5.4% House Amenity 33 4.4% House Amenity 282 4.3% Flat - Stair 2Nd Flr 22 2.9% Flat - Stair 2Nd Flr 196 3.0% House Detached 9 1.2% House Detached 77 1.2% House Wheelchair 5 0.7% House Wheelchair 53 0.8% Flat - Stair 3Rd Flr 1 0.1% Flat - Stair 3Rd Flr 9 0.1% House Bungalow 1 0.1% House Bungalow 16 0.2% Other formats - 0.0% Other formats e.g., studio 7 0.1% Total 750 100.0% Total 6,536 100.0% Property size As set out in table C, across a total of 750 completed surveys, there was a close match between the proportion of ‘completes’ by number of bedrooms and the ‘all stock’ percentages e.g. 54.1% of all interviews were completed with tenants living in 2 bed homes compared to 54.5% of all tenants who live in this size of property . 6 Effective sample was 1,803; note that 12 tenants asked to be surveyed by phone Page 315 of 390
Page 316
8 Table C – Survey sample by number of bedrooms Beds Interviews % interviews Beds Stock % stock 1 bed 97 12.9% 1 bed 836 12.8% 2 bed 406 54.1% 2 bed 3,561 54.5% 3 bed 208 27.7% 3 bed 1,825 27.9% 4 or more 39 5.1% 4 or more 314 4.9% Totals 750 100.0% Total 6,536 100.0% Location Table D considers the breakdown of completed surveys by location. This shows a close match between the locations that were surveyed and the spread of these areas within the Council’s population e.g., 19.1% of surveys were completed with tenants living in Dalkeith which compares to 19.7% of all tenants living within this location. Table D - Survey sample by location Interview location Interviews % interviews Stock location stock % stock Dalkeith 143 19.1% Dalkeith 1,288 19.7% Penicuik 126 16.8% Penicuik 1,057 16.2% Bonnyrigg 121 16.1% Bonnyrigg 1,031 15.8% Gorebridge 82 10.9% Gorebridge 702 10.7% Mayfield 72 9.6% Mayfield 593 9.1% Loanhead 71 9.5% Loanhead 562 8.6% Danderhall 37 4.9% Danderhall 308 4.7% Newtongrange 25 3.3% Newtongrange 253 3.9% Pathhead 14 1.9% Pathhead 124 1.9% Poltonhall 12 1.6% Poltonhall 99 1.5% Rosewell 11 1.5% Rosewell 92 1.4% Gowkshill 10 1.3% Gowkshill 96 1.5% Bilston 8 1.1% Bilston 112 1.7% Easthouses 7 0.9% Easthouses 57 0.9% Roslin 5 0.7% Roslin 58 0.9% Auchendinny 3 0.4% Auchendinny 19 0.3% Other Areas e.g., Lasswade etc. 3 0.4% Other areas e.g., Lasswade etc. 85 1.3% Total 750 100.0% Total 6,536 100.0% Person profile As illustrated in table E, a wide range of tenant ages took part in the survey e.g., 11.6% of respondents were aged 25 to 34. Note in the case of table E comparisons between the survey interviews and stock percentages should be treated with care as a large proportion of stock ages in the Council’s stock database have not been reported (11.1%). Page 316 of 390
Page 317
9 Table E - Survey sample age break Age Interviews % interviews Age Stock % stock 16 to 24 16 2.1% 16 to 24 125 1.9% 25 to 34 87 11.6% 25 to 34 844 12.9% 35 to 44 115 15.3% 35 to 44 1,149 17.6% 45 to 54 144 19.2% 45 to 54 1,204 18.4% 55 to 64 144 19.2% 55 to 64 1,185 18.1% 65 to 74 130 17.3% 65 to 74 753 11.5% 75 plus 106 14.1% 75 plus 551 8.4% Rather not say 8 1.1% Rather not say 725 11.1% Total 750 100.0% Total 6,536 100.0% Table F illustrates the break-down of survey responses by household size/type. This shows a wide range of households for example, 14.8% of all surveyed households comprised one adult under 60 years of age, 22.8% comprised one adult aged 60 and over etc. Households containing children represent 26.7% of all households that were surveyed. Table F –Survey sample by household size/composition (base 750) Household size/composition % all surveys Household size/composition % all surveys One adult under 60 14.8% 1 adult with children 12.0% One adult aged 60 or over 22.8% 2 adults with children 11.5% Two adults both under 60 9.2% 3 or more adults with children 3.2% Two adults, at least one 60 or over 17.2% Declined 0.8% Three or more adults 16 or over 8.5% Totals 100.0% As set out in table G, most surveyed tenants were either or working (37.2%), retired (31.7%), or unable to work (16.1%). This table will add to more than 100% because tenants may have chosen more than one status e.g. part time work and student. Table G –Survey sample by tenant status (base 750) Status % all surveys Status % all surveys Full time/part time work 37.2% Job seeker 4.8% Retired 31.7% Carer 4.7% Unable to work 16.1% Student/training 1.0% Not seeking work/at home with children 5.7% Declined 1.3% Ethnic origin Most tenants surveyed were white, e.g. 91.7% declared themselves to be ‘White Scottish’, 6.1% said they were ‘White British’. Housing benefit status Just over five in ten tenants (54.9%) received government assistance to pay their rent whilst 42.3% were in not in receipt of any government help to pay their rent. A small proportion of tenants did not know or declined to answer this question (2.8%). Page 317 of 390
Page 318
10 Report layout and weighting This report sets out tenant feedback on the questions that were posed in the survey. For each section, figures are provided alongside the relevant commentary. We have set out in the data tables an analysis of the survey results by characteristics such as property size etc. The survey data is unweighted because as illustrated in the preceding tables, there is reasonable match between the tenants , locations and properties that were surveyed and the wider tenant population on these measures. Comparisons Throughout the report we have made comparisons where possible with the Council’s previous tenant satisfaction survey (2019). Verbatim comments Any verbatim comments made by tenants are summarised in this report. Annexes containing the full list of comments are provided in a separate report. Rounding Note that as a result of the way Excel deals with rounding (rounding up all data), some figures in the charts and tables contained within this report may not sum to exactly 100%. Small data sets To make it easier to read the Excel charts, any figures of 2% or less have been excluded from the chart displays. Margin of error Based on an available population of 1,803 households, and a response rate of 750 completed surveys, the margin of error for the data contained in this survey is +-2.7%. Page 318 of 390
Page 319
11 Overall tenant satisfaction Figure 1 sets out the level of tenant satisfaction with the overall service provided by Midlothian Council (the Council) and illustrates that 81.5% of tenants are satisfied in 2022. Approx. one in ten tenants (11.7%) are dissatisfied with the Council’s service overall. The comparable Council satisfaction figure for 2019 was 84.4% whilst the Scottish social housing average satisfaction level for councils is currently 79.6%.7 Figure 1 –Satisfaction with the overall service provided by the Council (base 750) Q-Taking everything into account, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the overall service provided by Midlothian Council’s Housing Service? Impact of lockdown Although we cannot say for certain that this scenario applies to the Council’s result for overall satisfaction we have observed in other recent tenant satisfaction surveys that a tenant’s experience of service delivery and support during lockdown has a bearing on how they respond to the question of overall satisfaction i.e. where the tenant said they were satisfied with lockdown service delivery/support, an above average proportion of these tenants were also satisfied with services overall; the opposite applies in the case of tenants who were dissatisfied with services and support during lockdown. This lockdown effect may be one explanation for the 3% point reduction in the Council’s overall satisfaction figure compared to 2019. 7 Based on a sample of approx. 20,000 tenants surveyed across 18 landlords since April 2020 - weighted average (source SHR) 35.1% 46.4% 6.4% 6.8% 4.9% 0.4% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0% Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither-nor Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied No opinion Page 319 of 390
Page 320
12 Property size Considering overall tenant satisfaction by property size (as measured by number of beds), satisfaction ranges from 89.7% satisfied for tenants living in 1 bed homes through 82.2% (2 bed), to 76.9% for 3 and 4 bed plus homes. Property style Analysis of the responses for overall tenant satisfaction by property style (table 1) illustrates some degree of variation, e.g. 92.1% of tenants living in amenity homes are satisfied overall, which contrasts with the views of those living in four in a block, where 77.8% are satisfied overall. Table 1 - Overall satisfaction by property type (base 750) Q-Taking everything into account, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the overall service provided by the Council? Type Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither-nor Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied No opinion Amenity8 47.4% 44.7% - 5.3% 2.6% - Semi/detached 36.2% 46.5% 5.5% 7.9% 3.9% - Terraced 31.0% 51.4% 8.2% 5.8% 3.7% - Flat 38.7% 41.5% 5.7% 8.5% 4.7% 0.9% Four in a block 36.2% 41.6% 5.9% 7.0% 8.1% 1.1% All types 35.1% 46.4% 6.4% 6.8% 4.9% 0.4% Tenant profile Table 2 illustrates tenant satisfaction by household size and composition and shows that smaller households (86.5% satisfied), and those who do not have children in the household (83.1%) tend to be more satisfied overall than larger households (78.2% satisfied), and those that have children in the home (76.5%). Table 2 - Overall satisfaction by tenant profile (base 750) Q- Taking everything into account, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the overall service provided by the Council? Tenant profile Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither- nor Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied No opinion Single person household 40.4% 46.1% 2.8% 6.0% 3.9% 0.7% Two or more-person household 32.3% 45.9% 8.7% 7.4% 5.6% 0.2% No children in household 37.5% 45.6% 5.7% 6.4% 4.4% 0.4% Children in household 29.5% 47.0% 8.5% 8.0% 6.5% 0.5% All tenants 35.1% 46.4% 6.4% 6.8% 4.9% 0.4% As illustrated in table 3, amongst the most positive tenants in terms of overall satisfaction are those who are aged 65 plus (89.9% satisfied), tenants who are retired (89.9%), or those who receive full rent payment (84.5%). Conversely, the tenants who are least satisfied include younger tenants e.g., those aged 16-34 (76.6% satisfied) or tenants who are other not working9 (69.7%). 8 Includes wheelchair properties 9 Comprising stay at home parents, job seekers, carers and those in training Page 320 of 390
Page 321
13 Table 3 - Overall satisfaction by tenant profile (base 750) Q- Taking everything into account, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the overall service provided by the Council? Tenant profile Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither- nor Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied No opinion 65 plus 46.2% 43.6% 4.2% 3.4% 2.5% - Retired 44.5% 45.3% 4.2% 2.5% 3.4% - Yes, all of my rent is covered by benefits 40.1% 44.4% 4.7% 4.7% 5.4% 0.7% Unable to work 39.1% 42.6% 0.9% 10.4% 6.1% 0.9% 55 to 64 31.3% 50.0% 2.1% 7.6% 9.0% No, we pay full rent 33.8% 46.4% 6.9% 7.9% 4.7% 0.3% Employed 29.2% 50.2% 8.3% 6.9% 5.1% 0.4% 35 to 44 27.0% 50.4% 7.8% 7.8% 6.1% 0.9% Yes, part of my rent is covered by benefits 27.8% 49.6% 8.7% 9.6% 4.3% - 16 to 34 23.3% 53.4% 5.8% 8.7% 6.8% 1.9% 45 to 54 36.1% 37.5% 13.9% 9.7% 2.8% Other not working 28.6% 41.1% 10.7% 11.6% 7.1% 0.9% All tenants 35.1% 46.4% 6.4% 6.8% 4.9% 0.4% Tenant satisfaction by location is shown in table 4 and illustrates some degree of variation e.g. 87.3% overall satisfaction in Loanhead compared to 77.0% in Dalkeith. The variation between high and low satisfaction levels by town may partly reflect the demographic of the survey sample in these locations e.g. Dalkeith has a lower than average proportion of tenants aged 65 plus (28.0%); this compares to 36.6% in Loanhead. In addition, Dalkeith has a smaller proportion of tenants who are retired (28.6%); this compares to 38.0% in Loanhead. Also relevant here could be the property types that were sampled in each location e.g. in Dalkeith, 0.7% of the survey sample was amenity tenants compared to 4.2% in Loanhead. In the case of the other highest performing stock type i.e., semi/detached, the sample proportions were once again lower in Dalkeith (2.8%) than they were in Loanhead (16.9%). Table 4 - Overall satisfaction by town (base 750) Q- Taking everything into account, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the overall service provided by the Council? Town Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither- nor Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied No opinion Loanhead 35.2% 52.1% 4.2% 5.6% 2.8% - Bonnyrigg 52.9% 33.1% 5.0% 8.3% 0.8% - Penicuik 35.7% 47.6% 8.7% 2.4% 4.8% 0.8% Mayfield 16.7% 65.3% 8.3% 4.2% 5.6% - Other town 28.9% 50.4% 6.7% 5.2% 8.9% - Gorebridge 32.9% 45.1% 3.7% 17.1% 1.2% - Dalkeith 35.7% 41.3% 7.0% 7.0% 7.7% 1.4% All tenants 35.1% 46.4% 6.4% 6.8% 4.9% 0.4% Page 321 of 390
Page 322
14 Service improvements All tenants were asked to say how the Council could improve its overall service. The results of this enquiry are set out in figure 2 and indicate that providing a better repair service (20.0% of all tenants), improving the inside of the house (12.3%), improving communications (6.5%), and upgrading the external parts of the home (6.3%) are the four main improvement actions in terms of overall satisfaction. We observe that 50.0% of tenants said that nothing needed to be improved about the service whilst 4.7% replied ‘don’t know’. Figure 2 – Service improvements (base 750) Q- What if anything should your landlord do to improve its overall service? Other comments/suggestions One hundred and forty eight tenants (19.7%) made a comment relating to an improvement or suggested another change and some examples of the comments made are provided below: Q- What if anything should your landlord do to improve its overall service? (other/comments) ✓ It’s a nightmare to get repairs done. Better maintenance service needed ✓ Back fence is falling down and steps in pathway needs repairing ✓ They don't maintain the houses properly. They give you a nice new boiler, but they don't give new radiators ✓ Come when I ask them to (repairs); offer a quicker response time ✓ Make it easier to get a hold of them. When you phone no one answers, and an email is not replied to 19.7% 1.3% 1.6% 1.7% 2.0% 2.9% 3.3% 6.3% 6.5% 12.3% 20.0% Other Improve or maintain common areas such as closes, stairwells, door entry systems etc. Reduce the level of rent rises Deal with parking problems Improve or maintain the local landscaped areas Deal with problem neighbours or anti-social behaviour Sort out tenants' gardens Upgrade or improve the outside of the house e.g. cladding, painting, roofs etc. Improve communication with tenants Upgrade or improve the inside of the house e.g. kitchen, bathroom, windows etc Provide a better repairs service 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% Page 322 of 390
Page 323
15 ✓ Had a repair done a couple of times to the seal of my bath but it has not worked. Seal has broken again so obviously not done properly ✓ Improve the surrounding gardens ✓ Make it easier to move house ✓ The guttering is a safety concern as it's hanging off the bracket. We got new windows a year ago and they're not sealed properly; have called in about this but still waiting to hear back. Why do upgrades on doors and windows when they don't need replaced? Stop hiding behind Covid and provide a service. Page 323 of 390
Page 324
16 Housing quality satisfaction Overall tenant satisfaction with the quality of housing is set out in figure 3 and reveals that 83.9% of tenants are satisfied with their home whilst 8.3% are dissatisfied in 2022. The current year figure for satisfaction on this measure is similar to that that found during the 2019 survey (83.7% satisfied) but is ahead of the Scottish Council average (77.2%). Figure 3 –Satisfaction with housing quality overall (base 750) Q- Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the quality of your home? Housing quality satisfaction is highest for tenants living in smaller homes, e.g., 1 bed properties (92.8% satisfied), and lowest for those living 4 or more bed, homes (69.2%) - (table 5). Table 5 - Satisfaction with housing quality by property size (base 750) Q- Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the quality of your home? Bedrooms Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither-nor Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied 1 bed 55.7% 37.1% 3.1% 3.1% 1.0% 2 beds 38.9% 42.6% 10.6% 6.7% 1.2% 3 beds 41.3% 45.7% 4.3% 7.2% 1.4% 4 plus beds 41.0% 28.2% 10.3% 15.4% 5.1% All sizes 41.9% 42.0% 7.9% 6.8% 1.5% 41.9% 42.0% 7.9% 6.8% 1.5% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither-nor Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Page 324 of 390
Page 325
17 Table 6 illustrates a small amount variation in satisfaction with housing quality by property type i.e. amenity/wheelchair (89.4% satisfied) and semi/detached (86.6%), compared to four in a block (81.6%), and flats (77.4%). Table 6 - Satisfaction with housing quality by property type (base 750) Q- Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the quality of your home? Property type Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither-nor Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Amenity/wheelchair 52.6% 36.8% 5.3% 5.3% Semi/detached 44.9% 41.7% 5.5% 6.3% 1.6% Terraced 39.5% 46.3% 8.5% 5.1% 0.7% Four in a block 43.2% 38.4% 5.9% 9.2% 3.2% Flat 38.7% 38.7% 13.2% 8.5% 0.9% All types 41.9% 42.0% 7.9% 6.8% 1.5% In relation to tenant profile, table 7 illustrates that satisfaction with housing quality is highest amongst tenants who are aged 65 plus or retired (both 91.6% satisfied) or single person households (87.6%). Conversely, satisfaction is lowest amongst households containing children (77.5%), tenants aged 35 to 44 (76.5%), and those who are ‘other not working’ (75.0%). Table 7 - Satisfaction with housing quality by tenant profile (base 750) Q- Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the quality of your home? Tenant profile Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither- nor Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied 65 plus 60.2% 31.4% 3.8% 3.8% 0.8% Retired 58.1% 33.5% 4.7% 3.0% 0.8% Single person household 52.8% 34.8% 6.4% 5.0% 1.1% No children in household 47.8% 38.6% 7.2% 5.3% 1.1% 55 to 64 38.9% 44.4% 12.5% 2.8% 1.4% 45 to 54 36.1% 46.5% 6.9% 9.0% 1.4% Employed 34.7% 47.7% 7.9% 9.4% 0.4% Two or more-person household 35.7% 46.1% 8.4% 8.0% 1.7% Unable to work 42.6% 39.1% 8.7% 6.1% 3.5% 16 to 34 20.4% 57.3% 10.7% 9.7% 1.9% Children in household 27.0% 50.5% 9.0% 11.0% 2.5% 35 to 44 36.5% 40.0% 7.8% 13.0% 2.6% Other not working 28.6% 46.4% 12.5% 8.9% 3.6% All profiles 41.9% 42.0% 7.9% 6.8% 1.5% Energy efficiency and heating the home Around six in ten tenants (64.4%) said that there home was energy efficient whereas 25.9% said this was not the case and 9.7% did not know In relation to heating, approx. half of tenants (50.9%) said they could afford to heat their home whilst more than one in four (26.4%) said they could not afford to heat their home (22.70% said ‘don’t know’). Page 325 of 390
Page 326
18 Figure 4 shows the impact of ‘heating the home’ on tenants’ views of housing quality and illustrates that where a tenant can afford to heat their home, 92.4% are satisfied with housing quality whereas in the case of tenants who cannot afford to heat their home, housing quality drops to 66.7%. Figure 4 – Heating the home v housing quality (base 750) Q- Can you afford to heat your home v. housing quality? Making it easier to heat the home Tenants who said that they found it difficult to afford to heat their home were asked to say what their landlord could do to help them heat their home more easily. The results of this enquiry are shown in table 8 and illustrate that improving windows (42.9%), improving doors (30.3%), and better internal insulation of the home (23.2%) are the three main ways in which the Council could help tenants heat their home more easily. Twenty five tenants added a comment about this item (other 12.6%). Table 8 – Landlord help with heating costs (base 198) Q- How could your landlord help you to heat your home more easily? Improvement % Improvement % Improve windows (draughty) 42.9% Offer help with changing gas/electricity supplier 4.0% Improve doors (draughty) 30.3% Improve boiler 3.5% Better internal insulation of the home 23.2% Offer energy saving tips/advice 2.5% Better external insulation e.g., cladding 11.1% Other 12.6% Better heating system 11.1% 56.8% 17.2% 41.9% 35.6% 49.5% 42.0% 2.6% 15.7% 7.9% 4.7% 13.1% 6.8%4.5% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% Can afford to heat home Cannot afford to heat home All tenants Page 326 of 390
Page 327
19 Service improvements All tenants were asked to say how the Council could improve the quality of their home. Figure 5 indicates that improving windows (14.8% of all tenants), improving the bathroom (14.5%), and improving the kitchen (12.9%) are the three main housing quality improvement actions required by tenants. We observe that 45.1% of tenants said that nothing needed to be improved about the quality of their home whilst 3.7% replied ‘don’t know’. Figure 5 – Housing improvements (base 750) Q- What specific improvements if any should your landlord make to provide you with a better quality home? Other comments/suggestions One hundred and fifty two tenants (20.3%) made a comment relating to improvement or suggested another improvement and some examples of the comments made are provided below: Q- What specific improvements if any should your landlord make to provide you with a better quality home? (other/comments) ✓ Ceilings are all cracked. Roof has been leaking for years as roof tiles missing. Windows have been an issue since they were replaced ✓ Doors need adjusted and have mould in bedrooms ✓ Floorboards needs replaced ✓ I feel my house is falling to bits. I have reported several times, but nothing gets done ✓ Improve the external doors as water comes in the front door ✓ Plasterboard in rooms need replaced ✓ They could put in new doors. 20.3% 1.7% 1.9% 2.9% 4.3% 4.8% 6.7% 6.7% 8.3% 12.9% 14.5% 14.8% Other Improve/upgrade the door entry system Improve/upgrade the common stairs e.g. painting/repair Provide better noise insulation Improve/upgrade the outside of the building e.g. roof Improve/upgrade the boiler/heating system Deal with dampness/condensation in my home Improve/clean the gutters/pipework Reduce cold/draughts and provide better insulation Improve/upgrade the kitchen Improve/upgrade the bathroom Improve/upgrade the windows 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% Page 327 of 390
Page 328
20 Repair service Satisfaction with repairs Amongst tenants whose homes have been repaired in the last year, 72.4% are satisfied with the last repair whilst 19.3% are dissatisfied (figure 6). During the 2019 survey, 82.4% of tenants were satisfied with their most recent repair (carried out within the last year). The Scottish Council housing sector average for repairs satisfaction (which includes transactional data), is 91.2%. Figure 6 – Satisfaction with the repair service (base 243-repair in last year only) Q- Thinking about the last time you had repairs carried out, how satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the repair service provided by the Council? Repairs satisfaction by property factors Table 9 illustrates repairs satisfaction by property type. This table shows that the most satisfied tenants by property type are those living in four in a block house formats (85.9%) whilst for those living in flats satisfaction is much lower at 65.0%. 53.1% 19.3% 8.2% 11.1% 8.2% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither-nor Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Page 328 of 390
Page 329
21 Table 9 - Satisfaction with the repair service (base 243-repair in last year only) Q- Thinking about the last time you had repairs carried out, how satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the repair service provided by the Council? Property type Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither-nor Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Four in a block 56.1% 29.8% 3.5% 5.3% 5.3% Amenity/wheelchair 66.7% 8.3% 8.3% 8.3% 8.3% Semi/detached 64.4% 8.9% 8.9% 11.1% 6.7% Terraced 48.3% 18.0% 11.2% 11.2% 11.2% Flat 42.5% 22.5% 7.5% 20.0% 7.5% All types 53.1% 19.3% 8.2% 11.1% 8.2% Repairs satisfaction by period (last year only) Figure 7 analyses repair service satisfaction by when the repair was completed (within the last year) and shows that tenants with repairs that were completed up to two months ago are more satisfied (75.9%) than those tenants who homes have received repairs in an earlier period. This may suggest that repair service satisfaction has been improving over the last 12 months. Figure 7 – Satisfaction with the repair service (base 243-repair in last year only) Q- Thinking about the last time you had repairs carried out, how satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the repair service provided by the Council? 53.1% 49.2% 39.2% 56.5% 62.1% 19.3% 22.0% 29.4% 15.2% 13.8% 8.2% 5.1% 15.7% 6.5% 6.9% 11.1% 13.6% 9.8% 17.4% 6.9% 8.2% 10.2% 5.9% 4.3% 10.3% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% All repairs last year More than 6 months ago More than 4 months up to 6 months ago More than 2 months up to 4 months ago Up to 2 months ago Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither-nor Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Page 329 of 390
Page 330
22 Repairs satisfaction by tenant status Figure 8 analyses repair service satisfaction by the tenant’s economic status and illustrates that the most satisfied tenants in terms of repairs carried out in the last year are those who are unable to work (77.8% satisfied), or retired (77.5%), whilst the least satisfied tenants are those who are working (66.6%). Figure 8 – Satisfaction with the repair service (base 243-repair in last year only) Q- Thinking about the last time you had repairs carried out, how satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the repair service provided by the Council? Improving the repair service As shown in figure 9, the top six improvement suggestions for the repair service are: 1. Reduce the time it takes to start the repair (23.2% of all tenants) 2. Reduce the time it takes to complete a repair (18.1%) 3. Make it easier to report a repair (12.2%) 4. Complete the repairs on the first visit (11.4%) 5. Improve the quality of repair work (9.4%) 6. Ensure repair workers turn up (9.0%). 53.1% 47.1% 51.4% 57.5% 63.9% 19.3% 19.5% 16.2% 20.0% 13.9% 8.2% 4.6% 13.5% 11.3% 5.6% 11.1% 19.5% 5.4% 7.5% 5.6% 8.2% 9.2% 13.5% 3.8% 11.1% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% All tenants Employed Other not working Retired Unable to work Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither-nor Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Page 330 of 390
Page 331
23 Figure 9 – Improving the repair service (base 678, all repairs regardless of time frame)10 Q- How if at all, do you think that your landlord should improve its repair service? Repair service comments/suggestions Thirty seven tenants (5.4%) made an additional comment about repair service improvement, and some examples of the comments made in relation to the repair service are provided below: Q- How if at all, do you think that your landlord should improve its repair service? (other comments) ✓ Finish the jobs that they start ✓ Have a portal or online service to report repairs ✓ More qualified and equipped workers ✓ Replace items like doors as opposed to just patching up ✓ The list of what they say is an emergency is not what we say is an emergency (it's very limited). 10 Excludes ‘no repair’ 5.4% 1.8% 2.2% 2.2% 3.1% 3.8% 6.5% 9.0% 9.4% 11.4% 12.2% 18.1% 23.2% Other Ask repair workers to clean up after themselves Have more flexible times available for completing a repair e.g. evenings, weekends Repair workers should have a better attitude Make sure workers do not come to my home without an appointment Improve communication with the landlord's staff Improve communication with the Contractor's staff Ensure repair workers turn up when they say they will Improve the quality of repair work including the quality of the materials used for repairs Complete the repairs on the first visit whenever possible Make it easier to report a repair Reduce the time it takes to complete a repair Reduce the time it takes to start the repair 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% Page 331 of 390
Page 332
24 Information, participation, and contact In 2022, 80.1% of tenants rated ‘being kept informed’ as good, whilst 13.1% said that the Council was poor on this measure (and 6.8% replied ‘neither good nor poor’) (figure 10). Tenant satisfaction with being kept informed is somewhat lower than the 2019 survey (85.0% saying good). The sector average for this figure in 2022 is 80.8%. Figure 10 – Information (base 750) Q- How good or poor do you feel the Council is at keeping you informed about their services and decisions? Information and repair service We observe that there is a relationship between how tenants have responded to the question about their last repair (conducted in the last year) and how they rated the Council’s information provision. This information is set out in table 10 and shows that for tenants who were dissatisfied with their last property repair, more than one in three (35.7%) said that information provision was poor (compared to 13.4% of tenants whose property repair had been satisfactory). This may indicate that an aspect of information provision which is reducing the ‘good’ rating of this variable is information exchange as this relates to a property repair. Table 10 - Satisfaction with the repair service (base 243-repair in last year only) v information provision Q- Thinking about the last time you had repairs carried out, how satisfied or dissatisfied were you with the repair service provided by the Council? v. How good or poor do you feel the Council is at keeping you informed about their services and decisions? Rating of last repair % saying information provision is poor Satisfied with repair 13.4% Dissatisfied with repair 35.7% 33.8% 46.3% 6.8% 10.2% 2.9% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0% Very good Fairly good Neither-nor Fairly poor Very poor Page 332 of 390
Page 333
25 Tenant participation As illustrated in table 11, approx. eight in ten tenants (77.9%) are satisfied with opportunities to participate whilst 12.3% are dissatisfied on this measure. In 2019, 81.6% were satisfied whilst the current Scottish Council sector average for tenant participation is 74.8%. Satisfaction on this aspect of service varies by tenant profile ranging from 85.1% for tenants who are who are retired to 66.0% for tenants aged 16-34. Lower satisfaction amongst the Council’s younger tenants, may indicate a lack of awareness/interest in this aspect of the Council’s housing service (given that 16.5% of tenants aged 16-34 answered ‘neither satisfied nor dissatisfied’ for this question). Table 11 - Satisfaction with tenant participation (750) Q- How satisfied or dissatisfied are you with opportunities given to you to participate in your landlord's decision-making process? Tenant profile Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither-nor Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Retired 34.3% 50.8% 6.8% 6.4% 1.7% 65 plus 35.2% 49.6% 6.8% 5.9% 2.5% No children in household 30.1% 49.6% 8.8% 8.8% 2.6% 55 to 64 23.6% 55.6% 4.9% 10.4% 5.6% Employed 24.5% 53.1% 9.7% 10.1% 2.5% 35 to 44 27.0% 50.4% 11.3% 9.6% 1.7% 45 to 54 31.9% 43.1% 12.5% 9.7% 2.8% Unable to work 40.0% 34.8% 12.2% 7.8% 5.2% Children in household 30.5% 42.5% 12.0% 10.5% 4.5% Other not working 25.9% 42.9% 11.6% 14.3% 5.4% 16 to 34 30.1% 35.9% 16.5% 14.6% 2.9% Total 30.0% 47.9% 9.9% 9.2% 3.1% Preferred ways of offering tenant views Most tenants (55.5%) are not particularly interested in getting involved in giving their views to their landlord. Where tenants do wish to give their views, surveys is the most popular method of participating (table 12). Table 12 – Consultation preferences (750) Q- How do you prefer to give your views about your landlord's activities and decisions? Method % Method % Through paper, online, phone surveys 43.6% Other (mainly by letter) 4.7% Meetings/events 2.7% Not interested in giving any views 55.5% Focus groups 1.9% Contact preferences Tenants’ preferences for contacting the Council in the future are principally telephone i.e. mobile (63.9%) and landline (29.1%). Digital methods e.g. email (14.1%) and text (10.9%) are also popular with tenants as ways of contacting Council. Other preferred methods (1.2%) comprise through another person such as a family member. Page 333 of 390
Page 334
26 Figure 11 – Contacting the Council (base 750) Q - What would be your preferred ways of contacting the Council in the future? As illustrated in table 13, most tenants prefer to be kept informed by their landlord by means of letter (58.8%), telephone (43.7%), email (21.5%), and newsletter (19.5%). Table 13 – Information preferences (750) Q- And how do you prefer the Council to keep you informed about their services and decisions? Method % preference Letter 58.8% Telephone 43.7% E-mail 21.5% Newsletter 19.5% Visits from housing officers 2.3% WhatsApp/Instagram etc. 1.1% Video conferencing e.g., Zoom 0.1% 1.2% 0.4% 0.9% 1.2% 9.9% 10.9% 14.1% 29.1% 63.9% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% Page 334 of 390
Page 335
27 Rent value for money As set out in figure 13, most tenants (80.8%) rate rent as good value for money, whilst 5.4% say that rent is poor value (and 13.9% answered ‘neither good nor poor’ value). In 2019, 84.4% rated rent as good value, whilst the 2022 Council sector average is 79.1%. Figure 12 – Rating of rent value for money (base 750) Q- Taking into account the accommodation and the services the Council provides, to what extent do you think that the rent for this property represents good or poor value for money? Is it…… Table 14 indicates rent value by property size and shows that tenants living in one bed homes are the most positive on this measure (87.6% say rent is good value), whilst the least positive are those tenants who live in four or more bed homes (76.9%). Table 14 - Rating of rent value for money by property size (base 750) Q- Taking into account the accommodation and the services the Council provides, to what extent do you think that the rent for this property represents good or poor value for money? Is it…… Apartments Very good Fairly good Neither-nor Fairly poor Very poor 1 bed 40.2% 47.4% 10.3% 2.1% - 3 beds 37.0% 46.2% 13.0% 3.4% 0.5% 2 beds 36.7% 41.6% 15.3% 5.2% 1.2% 4 plus beds 33.3% 43.6% 12.8% 5.1% 5.1% All sizes 37.1% 43.7% 13.9% 4.3% 1.1% 37.1% 43.7% 13.9% 4.3% 1.1% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0% 50.0% Very good Fairly good Neither-nor Fairly poor Very poor Page 335 of 390
Page 336
28 In relation to property type, tenants living in amenity/wheelchair adapted homes (92.1% say ‘good value’) are the most likely to say that rent is good value for money whilst the least likely to rate rent value as good are tenants living in four in a block properties (75.2%) – table 15. Table 15- Rating of rent value for money by property type (base 750) Q- Taking into account the accommodation and the services the Council provides, to what extent do you think that the rent for this property represents good or poor value for money? Is it…… Property type Very good Fairly good Neither-nor Fairly poor Very poor Amenity/wheelchair 34.2% 57.9% 7.9% - - Terraced 37.8% 45.9% 12.6% 3.4% 0.3% Semi/detached 32.3% 48.0% 13.4% 3.9% 2.4% Flat 42.5% 36.8% 17.0% 3.8% - Four in a block 36.8% 38.4% 15.7% 7.0% 2.2% All types 37.1% 43.7% 13.9% 4.3% 1.1% Considering tenant profile/response (table 16), amongst the most positive tenants on rent value are those who can afford to heat their home (88.5% say rent is good value), and tenants who are aged 65 plus or retired (both 87.7%). The least positive on this measure are households who cannot afford to heat their home (66.1% say rent is good value), those who are neutral11 on this question (61.0%) and tenants who said their quality of housing was poor (46.8%). Table 16- Rating of rent value for money by tenant profile (base 750) Q- Taking into account the accommodation and the services the Council provides, to what extent do you think that the rent for this property represents good or poor value for money? Is it…… Tenant profile/response Very good Fairly good Neither-nor Fairly poor Very poor Can afford to heat home 45.8% 42.7% 8.9% 2.1% 0.5% 65 plus 47.0% 40.7% 8.9% 3.0% 0.4% Retired 46.2% 41.5% 9.7% 2.5% - Housing quality is good 41.0% 45.0% 11.8% 1.9% 0.3% Children in household 32.0% 50.5% 9.5% 6.0% 2.0% Two or more-person household 35.5% 46.1% 11.5% 5.8% 1.1% No children in household 39.3% 41.0% 15.3% 3.7% 0.7% Single person household 40.4% 39.4% 17.4% 1.8% 1.1% Employed 32.5% 47.3% 13.4% 6.1% 0.7% 35 to 44 34.8% 43.5% 13.0% 7.8% 0.9% 55 to 64 31.3% 46.5% 18.8% 2.1% 1.4% 16 to 34 33.0% 44.7% 16.5% 4.9% 1.0% Unable to work 41.7% 35.7% 15.7% 3.5% 3.5% 45 to 54 32.6% 44.4% 15.3% 5.6% 2.1% Other not working 26.8% 47.3% 19.6% 4.5% 1.8% Cannot afford to heat home 23.7% 42.4% 20.2% 10.6% 3.0% Housing quality (neutral) 23.7% 37.3% 33.9% 5.1% - Housing quality is poor 9.7% 37.1% 16.1% 27.4% 9.7% All profiles/responses 37.1% 43.7% 13.9% 4.3% 1.1% 11 Responded ‘neither satisfied nor dissatisfied’ on housing quality Page 336 of 390
Page 337
29 Improving value for money All tenants were asked to say what the Council should do to improve rent value. The results for this question are set out in figure 13 and show that providing a better repair service (13.7% of all tenants), reducing the level of rent increases (13.7%), and improving the inside of the home (11.9%) are the three main ways in which value for money could be improved. We would observe here that most tenants (51.1%) said that nothing needed to be improved about rent value whilst 10.8% responded ‘don’t know’. Figure 13 – Improving rent value for money (base 750) Q – What if anything should the Council do improve value for money? 2.0% 1.7% 6.4% 8.0% 9.1% 11.9% 13.7% 13.7% Other Reduce the amount of anti-social behaviour including problem neighbours Carry out more building maintenance e.g. painting, roughcasting etc. Improve/upgrade the external parts of my home e.g. common stairs, door entry systems, back courts Reduce the level of rent charged Improve/upgrade the inside of my home Reduce the amount of annual rent increases Provide a better repair service 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% 14.0% 16.0% Page 337 of 390
Page 338
30 Value for money - other/comments Fifteen tenants (2.0%) made a comment about rent value or said that something else needed to be changed and these comments were somewhat varied with examples provided below: Q – What if anything should the Council do improve value for money? (other/comments) ✓ Deal with draughts ✓ Deal with issues ✓ Draught proof my home ✓ Give me a smaller home ✓ Improve gates ✓ Just clean the gutters ✓ Listen to the tenants ✓ Make rents the same regardless of property size ✓ More maintenance around the area ✓ Provide energy saving checks ✓ Replace and fix things properly first time and don't just keep patching up repeatedly ✓ Sort gutters and deal with front door water ingress ✓ Would like the rent to stay same for a while. Page 338 of 390
Page 339
31 Neighbourhood management satisfaction Tenants were asked if they were satisfied or dissatisfied with how their landlord managed the neighbourhood they lived in. Table 17 shows that 85.5% of tenants are satisfied on this measure whilst 6.5% are dissatisfied. In 2019, 81.1% of tenants were satisfied with ‘neighbourhood management’ whilst the sector average in 2022 is 77.3%. We observe that neighbourhood management is the only comparable ARC indicator where the Council’s survey score in 2022 is higher than it was in the previous survey. Table 17 – Neighbourhood management (base 750) Q- Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the Council’s contribution to the management of the neighbourhood you live in? Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither-nor Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied 42.6% 42.9% 8.0% 4.5% 2.0% Neighbourhood management by town Table 18 illustrates neighbourhood management satisfaction by town and shows a fairly similar pattern of satisfaction with the highest figure for Mayfield 88.9% satisfied) and the lowest for Dalkeith (81.9%). Table 18 – Neighbourhood management (750) Q – Overall, how satisfied or dissatisfied are you with the Council’s contribution to the management of the neighbourhood you live in? Town Very satisfied Fairly satisfied Neither-nor Fairly dissatisfied Very dissatisfied Mayfield 45.8% 43.1% 6.9% 4.2% - Penicuik 45.2% 42.9% 7.9% 1.6% 2.4% Loanhead 32.4% 54.9% 11.3% 1.4% - Other towns 36.3% 49.6% 6.7% 5.2% 2.2% Bonnyrigg 47.9% 37.2% 9.9% 4.1% 0.8% Gorebridge 47.6% 35.4% 4.9% 8.5% 3.7% Dalkeith 42.0% 39.9% 8.4% 6.3% 3.5% All towns 42.6% 42.9% 8.0% 4.5% 2.0% Improving the neighbourhood All tenants were asked to say what might improve their neighbourhood as a place to live. As illustrated in figure 14, the top five neighbourhood improvements are dealing with problem neighbours (9.5% of all tenants), tackling dog fouling (7.2%), maintaining trees, shrubs, and grass areas (6.5%), tackling drug use/drug dealing (5.6%), maintaining tenants’ gardens (5.1%). We would note here that 4.3% of tenants answered ‘don’t know’ to this question and approx. six in ten (58.8%) said that nothing needed to be improved about the neighbourhood. Page 339 of 390
Page 340
32 Figure 14 – Improving the neighbourhood (base 750) Q- In your view, what if anything, should be done to improve your neighbourhood as a place to live? Other neighbourhood issues Eighty one tenants (10.8%) identified another improvement to their neighbourhood. These include for example: Q- In your view, what if anything, needs to be done to improve your neighbourhood as a place to live? ✓ A permit zone for parking ✓ CCTV to improve lighting ✓ Improve parks etc 10.8% 0.4% 0.8% 0.8% 1.2% 1.5% 2.9% 3.1% 4.1% 4.5% 4.7% 5.1% 5.6% 6.5% 7.2% 9.5% Other Tackle racial/other harassment Limit storage in the common landings e.g. bikes, prams, mobility scooters etc. Have more communication with the neighbourhood and community Improve access to support services for tenants Modernise the bin stores Deal with fly tipping Deal with litter Improve parking Tackle youth disorder Improve how tenancies are managed Better maintain tenants' gardens Tackle drug use/drug dealing Maintain trees, shrubs and grass areas Tackle dog fouling Deal with problem neighbours 0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% Page 340 of 390
Page 341
33 ✓ Litter is a major problem - local shop kicks it aside rather than pick it up ✓ More for the kids to do ✓ Stop putting undesirables into the houses ✓ Waste ground at the side of house needs attention by owner. Page 341 of 390
Page 342
Page 342 of 390
Page 343
Midlothian Council 13 December 2022 Item 8.9 Edinburgh and South East Scotland City Region Deal – Annual Report 2022 Kevin Anderson, Executive Director Place Report for Information 1 Recommendations Council is recommended to note the fourth Annual Report of the Edinburgh and South East Scotland City Region Deal. 2 Purpose of Report/Executive Summary This report summarises the key findings on the appended City Region Deal Annual Report as approved by the City Region Deal Joint Committee on 2 September 2022. Chair of the ESESCR Deal will rotate from Midlothian Council at the end of 2022 to Scottish Borders Council in 2023, and West Lothian Council will assume the vice chair. Date 24 November 2022 Report Contact: Kevin Anderson, Executive Director Place Kevin.Anderson@midlothian.gov.uk Page 343 of 390
Page 344
2 3 Background/Main Body of Report 3.1 The Edinburgh and South East Scotland City Region Deal was signed by the First Minister, Prime Minister and City Region Leaders on 7 August 2018. 3.2 Each year the City Region Deal partners are required to produce an Annual Report to assess how well the City Region Deal is aligning towards the overall vision and inclusive growth outcomes for the city region. The first Annual Report was approved by the City Region Deal Joint Committee on 3 September 2019, with subsequent reports approved in 2020 and 2021. 3.3 This report provides an update on the fourth Annual Report for 2021/22, approved by the City Region Deal Joint Committee on 2 September 2022. 3.4 The Annual Report for 2021/22 is an overall progress report for the City Region Deal programme between 1 August 2021 and 31 July 2022, with the exception of the Financial Statement which contains financial information for the financial year 2021/22. 3.5 It contains a City Region Deal overview, Financial Statement, a short summary of progress on each project and programme and expected milestones to be achieved in the next year. This year, as more projects move into delivery, a series of case study videos are embedded in the report to demonstrate how the Deal’s projects and programmes are benefiting people. 3.6 The report demonstrates significant progress across the 20 projects and programmes within the City Region Deal. While cost inflation has affected the budget of some of the projects which are in delivery, at the financial year end 2021/22, all were considered to be within acceptable time and budget parameters: • 2 projects were in Stage 1: Define, which means that the project’s business case is yet to be completed (6 in 2021), • 15 are were Stage 2: Implement, which means that the project’s business case has been approved by Joint Committee and is in the process of being implemented (13 in 2021) • 6 are were Stage 3: Deliver, which means that the project has been implemented and is working towards delivering its objectives (5 in 2021) • 14 projects were considered to be on target to be completed on time (green score) or have been completed on time (14 in 2021) Page 344 of 390
Page 345
3 • 9 projects were delayed, but considered to be within an acceptable range, with management action in place to address the issue (amber score). (10 in 2021) • 19 projects were considered to be on target to be completed within the specified budget (green score) or have been completed within the specified budget (19 in 2021) • 2 projects were projected to cost more than the specified budget, but considered to be within an acceptable range, with management action in place to address the issue (amber score). (2 in 2020) • £58.09 million of Government money was drawn down in the 2021/22, with £54.02 million spent on Capital projects and £4.07 million on the Revenue programme. 3.7 As well as delivering on the projects in the Deal, the Annual Report demonstrates that the Governance structure, established to manage City Region Deal activity, has also enabled effective and strong regional partnership working on important cross-regional activities, including: • Developing and publishing a Regional Prosperity Framework for Delivery which will be a catalyst for Regional Prosperity (led by a cross-regional officers’ team, steered by the Regional Enterprise Council and overseen by the Elected Member Oversight Committee); • Establishing a series of regional propositions for the region’s six local authorities to bid into together to the UK Government’s Shared Prosperity Fund, over the next three years; • Launching the ESES Communities portal to assist with delivering community benefits across the programme; • Contributing the City Deal regional perspective to key consultations including National Planning Framework 4; the National Strategy for Economic Transformation; and the Strategic Transport Projects Review 2; • Joint Committee endorsing the Forth Green Freeport bid to boost innovation and inclusive growth within our communities; and • Establishing a regional Bus Service Improvement Partnership to deliver £3.03m of regional bus improvements from the Scottish Government’s Bus Partnership Fund. 4 Report Implications (Resource, Digital and Risk) 4.1 Resource A summary of the City Region Deal total over a fifteen-year period is shown at Page 14, 15 and 16 of the Annual Report. Page 345 of 390
Page 346
4 4.2 Digital Not applicable 4.3 Risk Not applicable 4.4 Ensuring Equalities (if required a separate IIA must be completed) An IIA is not required 4.4 Additional Report Implications (See Appendix A) See Appendix A Appendices Appendix A – Additional Report Implications Appendix B – ESESCRD Annual Report Page 346 of 390
Page 347
5 APPENDIX A – Report Implications A.1 Key Priorities within the Single Midlothian Plan Not applicable A.2 Key Drivers for Change Key drivers addressed in this report: Holistic Working Hub and Spoke Modern Sustainable Transformational Preventative Asset-based Continuous Improvement One size fits one None of the above A.3 Key Delivery Streams Key delivery streams addressed in this report: One Council Working with you, for you Preventative and Sustainable Efficient and Modern Innovative and Ambitious None of the above A.4 Delivering Best Value Not applicable A.5 Involving Communities and Other Stakeholders The Annual reports are followed up in a conversation between the Scottish City Region Deal Delivery Board and UK and Scottish Government. The Annual Conversation for this year is scheduled on 28th November 2022. A.6 Impact on Performance and Outcomes Each City Region Deal theme lead has examined how best to monitor and evaluate future impacts. Individually, a range of approaches (including bespoke surveys, refining existing data and customer relationship management monitoring systems, creating new data sets and adopting the measures used in the Scottish Government’s National Performance Framework and other similar indices) are being adopted. Last year, the Programme Management Office (PMO) commissioned the Smart Data Foundry to recommend measures to be put in place so that outputs and impacts can be captured, measured and reported on by 2023 and thereafter. Page 347 of 390
Page 348
6 A.7 Adopting a Preventative Approach Not applicable A.8 Supporting Sustainable Development Not applicable Appendix B – ESESCRD Annual Report City Region Deal Annual Report 2021/22 (interactive version) City Region Deal Annual Report 2021/22 (accessible version) (PDF, 2MB) Page 348 of 390
Page 349
Midlothian Council Tuesday 13 December 2022 Item 8.10 Community Asset Transfer Committee Membership Kevin Anderson, Executive Director Place Report for Information 1 Recommendations Council is asked to note the outcome of the allocation by lot to the Community Asset Transfer Committee and the Community Asset Transfer Review Committee, as detailed below. 2 Purpose of Report/Executive Summary Council agreed at its meeting of 24 May 2022 that the appointment of members to the Community Asset Transfer Committee, the Community Asset Transfer Review Committee and the substitutes for both, be appointed by lot. This process has taken place and the appointments for all are listed below. Date Tuesday 13 December 2022 Report Contact: Kevin Anderson, Executive Director Place Kevin.Anderson@midlothian.gov.uk Page 349 of 390
Page 350
2 3 Background/Main Body of Report 3.1 The Council received a valid Community Asset Transfer (CAT) request on 28 September 2022. Under the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015, the Council is required to convene a CAT Committee within 6 months of receipt to determine the application. 3.2 At its meeting of 24 May 2022 Council agreed that the appointment of members to the Community Asset Transfer Committee, the Community Asset Transfer Review Committee and the substitutes for both, be appointed by lot (see excerpt from agreed minute of the meeting of 24 May 2022 below): Community Asset Transfer Committee 6 members To be appointed by lot by which the 6 appointed for the Community Asset Transfer Committee cannot be the same members for the Community Asset Transfer Review Committee and then the remaining one member from each ward can be the substitute for either the Community Asset Transfer Committee or Community Asset Transfer Review Committee Community Asset Transfer Review Committee 6 members To be appointed by lot by which the 6 appointed for the Community Asset Transfer Review Committee cannot be the same members for the Community Asset Transfer Committee and then the remaining one member from each ward can be the substitute for either the Community Asset Transfer Committee or Community Asset Transfer Review Committee Page 350 of 390
Page 351
3 3.3 Following Council on 15 November 2022, the allocation process took place in the Council Chamber using a technical solution (a random name generator). This process was overseen by Group Leaders from the three political groups and the outcome recorded by the clerk. The process was as follows: • A member from each of the 6 wards is allocated in turn by lot to the Asset Transfer Committee • A member from each of the 6 wards is allocated in turn by lot to the Asset Transfer Review Committee • The remaining members act as potential substitute members for either the Asset Transfer Committee or Asset Transfer Review Committee 3.4 The outcome of this allocation process is shown below. Appendix B gives the full breakdown of how the roles were allocated. Community Asset Transfer Committee 6 members Councillor Connor McManus Councillor Dianne Alexander Councillor Colin Cassidy Councillor Kelly Parry Councillor Stuart McKenzie Councillor Ellen Scott Community Asset Transfer Review Committee 6 members Councillor Willie McEwan Councillor Derek Milligan Councillor Stephen Curran Councillor Pauline Winchester Councillor Bryan Pottinger Councillor Kelly Drummond Substitutes 6 members Councillor Debbi McCall Councillor David Virgo Councillor Margot Russell Councillor Russell Imrie Councillor Peter Smaill Councillor Douglas Bowen 3.5 Members are asked to note the above. Page 351 of 390
Page 352
4 4 Report Implications (Resource, Digital and Risk) 4.1 Resource There are no resource implications with the allocation process nor the convening of the required Committee(s). 4.2 Digital A digital solution was used to determine the allocation. 4.3 Risk The risk of not allocating members to the Committees is that the Council does not fulfil its statutory obligations under the Community Empowerment (Scotland) Act 2015 by being unable to determine valid Community Asset Transfer requests. 4.4 Ensuring Equalities (if required a separate IIA must be completed) An IIA is not required for the allocation process. 4.4 Additional Report Implications (See Appendix A) See Appendix A Appendices Appendix A – Additional Report Implications Appendix B – Detailed allocation results Page 352 of 390
Page 353
5 APPENDIX A – Report Implications A.1 Key Priorities within the Single Midlothian Plan The allocation of members allows a Community Asset Transfer request to be determined. When being determined consideration will be given to how the request aligns to the key priorities in the Single Midlothian Plan. A.2 Key Drivers for Change Key drivers addressed in this report: Holistic Working Hub and Spoke Modern Sustainable Transformational Preventative Asset-based Continuous Improvement One size fits one None of the above A.3 Key Delivery Streams Key delivery streams addressed in this report: One Council Working with you, for you Preventative and Sustainable Efficient and Modern Innovative and Ambitious None of the above A.4 Delivering Best Value All asset transfer requests are subject to the Best Value test as part of the request consideration. A.5 Involving Communities and Other Stakeholders The asset transfer requests when considered must show how they have given due regard to community and other relevant stakeholders views. A.6 Impact on Performance and Outcomes All community asset transfer requests must demonstrate how they will achieve improved outcomes for communities. Page 353 of 390
Page 354
6 A.7 Adopting a Preventative Approach Asset transfers can generate preventative action for communities through bringing an asset into community use/benefit, therefore advancing equalities and opportunities for all. A.8 Supporting Sustainable Development Community Asset Transfers consider sustainability when determining the application. Page 354 of 390
Page 355
7 APPENDIX B Following the 14 November 2022 Council meeting, members of the Community Asset Transfer Committee and Community Asset Transfer Review Committee were appointed by the drawing of lots, by which the 6 members appointed for the Community Asset Transfer Committee cannot be the same members for the Community Asset Transfer Review Committee and then the remaining one member from each ward can be the substitute for either the Community Asset Transfer Committee or Community Asset Transfer Review Committee. The outcome of the draw was as follows – Ward 1 Penicuik 1. Councillor Connor McManus 2. Councillor Willie McEwan 3. Councillor Debbi McCall Ward 2 Bonnyrigg 1. Councillor Dianne Alexander 2. Councillor Derek Milligan 3. Councillor David Virgo Ward 3 Dalkeith 1. Councillor Colin Cassidy 2. Councillor Stephen Curran 3. Councillor Margot Russell Ward 4 Midlothian West 1. Councillor Kelly Parry 2. Councillor Pauline Winchester 3. Councillor Russell Imrie Ward 5 Midlothian East 1. Councillor Stuart McKenzie 2. Councillor Bryan Pottinger 3. Councillor Peter Smaill Ward 6 Midlothian South 1. Councillor Ellen Scott 2. Councillor Kelly Drummond 3. Councillor Douglas Bowen Key - 1. Community Asset Transfer Committee 2. Community Asset Transfer Review Committee 3. Substitute member for either the Asset Transfer Committee or Asset Transfer Review Committee Page 355 of 390
Page 356
8 Using the above key this means appointment to the Committees are as follows – Community Asset Transfer Committee 6 members Councillor Connor McManus Councillor Dianne Alexander Councillor Colin Cassidy Councillor Kelly Parry Councillor Stuart McKenzie Councillor Ellen Scott Community Asset Transfer Review Committee 6 members Councillor Willie McEwan Councillor Derek Milligan Councillor Stephen Curran Councillor Pauline Winchester Councillor Bryan Pottinger Councillor Kelly Drummond Substitutes 6 members Councillor Debbi McCall Councillor David Virgo Councillor Margot Russell Councillor Russell Imrie Councillor Peter Smaill Councillor Douglas Bowen Page 356 of 390
Page 357
Midlothian Council Tuesday 13 December 2022 Item 8.11 National Discussion Consultation Report by Fiona Robertson, Executive Director Children, Young People and Partnerships Report for Decision 1 Recommendations Council is requested to delegate authority to the Children, Young People and Partnerships Cross-party Group of members to sign off Midlothian Council’s response to the National Discussion consultation prior to submission to the Scottish Government. 2 Purpose of Report/Executive Summary This report advises members of the National Discussion consultation which was co-convened by the Scottish Government and COSLA on 21 September 2022 and how key stakeholders within Midlothian have been supported to engage in the National Discussion and inform Midlothian Council’s response. Date: 29 November 2022 Report Contact: Fiona Robertson, Executive Director Children, Young People and Partnerships E mail: Fiona.Robertson@midlothian.gov.uk Page 357 of 390
Page 358
3 Background 3.1 In 2020, the Scottish Government invited the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to assess the implementation of Curriculum for Excellence (CfE) in primary and secondary schools to understand how school curricula have been designed and implemented in recent years. In June 2021, the OECD published Scotland’s Curriculum for Excellence: Into the Future, an in-depth analysis of the progress made since 2015. The key recommendations set out in this report aim to support Scotland as it further enhances CfE to achieve its potential for the present and future of its learners. 3.2 The Scottish Government commissioned Professor Ken Muir, University of West of Scotland, to provide independent advice on aspects of education reform in Scotland. This included designing the implementation of the recommendations for structural and functional change of the Scottish Qualifications Agency (SQA) and Education Scotland which arose from the OECD report. 3.3 Professor Ken Muir published his report, Putting Learners at the Centre: Towards a Future Vision for Scottish Education on 9 March 2022, within which he made the following recommendation: “The Scottish Government should initiate a national discussion on establishing a compelling and consensual vision for the future of Scottish education that takes account of the points made in this report, in particular the importance of placing the learner at the centre of all decisions. The vision for Curriculum for Excellence (CfE) should be considered as part of this discussion as should consideration of how the education system seeks to address the purposes described in Article 29 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). Invitations to shape this vision should be made to all partners and stakeholders, including all learners, teachers, practitioners, parents and carers. It will be important to ensure that ‘narrative privilege’ is accorded to all who have an interest and not just key educational bodies, with opportunities for all to debate and challenge emerging suggestions.” 3.4 The Scottish Government launched ‘Let’s Talk Scottish Education’ a national discussion on Scotland’s Education System in September 2022. The discussion is co-convened by the Scottish Government and CoSLA. Everyone who has a stake in the future of Scottish education is being invited to join to help build on the successes of our system and ensure it remains world leading for future generations. Two independent facilitators have been appointed to help shape the discussion; Professor Carol Campbell and Professor Alma Harris. Page 358 of 390
Page 359
3.5 Engagement with key stakeholders The Education Service has proactively encouraged key stakeholder participation in the National Discussion. Our Parent and Learner Liaison Officer organised engagement sessions with parents/carers and learners from early years through to secondary senior phase, including our specialist provision. At the time of publishing this report, nine parent and 15 pupil consultation sessions have taken place, both face-to-face and virtual. Discussion sessions have also taken place with Headteachers and Parent Councils. Whilst we continue to analyse the outcomes of these discussions there are recurring themes coming through, including: • The need for life skills as well as subject content • Improved support for children and young people who require additional support for learning • Standardisation of the number of qualifications young people study Once the analysis of the outcome of all of our discussions is complete, the Education service will prepare a report to be submitted on behalf of Midlothian Council. Page 359 of 390
Page 360
4 Report Implications (Resource, Digital, Risk and Equalities) 4.1 Resource Not applicable at present as any impact is yet to be defined. 4.2 Digital Not applicable at present as any impact on digital resources is yet to be defined. 4.3 Risk Not applicable at present as any risk impact is yet to be defined. 4.4 Ensuring Equalities Not applicable at present. 4.5 Additional Report Implications Not applicable. Page 360 of 390
Page 361
APPENDIX A – Report Implications A.1 Key Priorities within the Single Midlothian Plan A.2 Key Drivers for Change Key drivers addressed in this report: Holistic Working Hub and Spoke Modern Sustainable Transformational Preventative Asset-based Continuous Improvement One size fits one None of the above A.3 Key Delivery Streams Key delivery streams addressed in this report: One Council Working with you, for you Preventative and Sustainable Efficient and Modern Innovative and Ambitious None of the above A.4 Delivering Best Value Not applicable at present as any impact is yet to be defined. A.5 Involving Communities and Other Stakeholders Key stakeholders have been involved in engagement sessions from across our communities. A.6 Impact on Performance and Outcomes Not applicable at present as any impact on performance and outcomes is yet to be defined. A.7 Adopting a Preventative Approach Not applicable at present. A.8 Supporting Sustainable Development Not applicable at present. Page 361 of 390
Page 362
APPENDIX B Background Papers/Resource Links (if applicable) National Discussion Scottish Education - Scottish Government - Citizen Space (consult.gov.scot) Putting Learners at the Centre: Towards a Future Vision for Scottish Education - gov.scot (www.gov.scot) Page 362 of 390
Page 363
Midlothian Council 13 December 2022 Item 8.12 Best Value Focus from the Accounts Commission Dr Grace Vickers, Chief Executive Report for Information 1 Recommendations Council is recommended to: i. note the changes introduced by the Accounts Commission for Best Value reporting including: a. planned thematic audit work across all councils using the revised Best Value themes and b. the introduction of short reports (Section 102 reports) for each council over a four-year period, to be presented to the Accounts Commission by the Controller of Audit. ii. Consider recommending an Elected Members briefing on Best Value be held early next year. 2 Purpose of Report/Executive Summary To provide Council with an update on the assessment and reporting focus for Best Value moving forward and to ensure awareness of the revision to the statutory guidance for Best Value published in 2020. Date 23 November 2022 Report Contact: Myra Forsyth, Continuous Improvement Manager myra.forsyth@midlothian.gov.uk Page 363 of 390
Page 364
2 3 Background 3.1 Local authorities in Scotland are required to comply with the Local Government in Scotland Act 2003, which introduced a statutory framework for Best Value for local authorities. The Best Value duties set out in the Act are: • to make arrangements to secure continuous improvement in performance (while maintaining an appropriate balance between quality and cost); and, in making those arrangements and securing that balance, to have regard to economy, efficiency, effectiveness, the equal opportunities requirement and to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development • to achieve break-even trading accounts, subject to mandatory disclosure • to observe proper accounting practices • to make arrangements for the reporting to the public of the outcome of the performance of functions. 3.2 Best Value has been in place since 2004, identifying the characteristics of Best Value to help local authorities develop arrangements to demonstrate continuous improvement in their performance. 3.3 Midlothian Council achieves delivery of Best Value through a framework of processes, controls and scrutiny which ensures that services are efficient and effectively managed and delivered in compliance with Best Value requirements. 3.4 Key elements demonstrating the council’s compliance with Best Value have been, and will continue to be: • A robust approach to the management of financial resources, including the Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) • A well-established performance management framework that is aligned to strategic goals and priorities • An established system of officer and elected member scrutiny and a comprehensive Local Code of Corporate Governance • Comprehensive Standing Orders in line with Section 81 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 3.5 In July 2019, the council’s Best Value Assurance Report (BVAR) was published by the Accounts Commission recognised that the Council had delivered a number of ambitious projects since the Council’s last Best Value report in 2012, in particular in relation to schools, community campuses, housing and transport. 3.6 Recommendations detailed in the BVAR, and noted below, were used to develop an improvement action plan: Page 364 of 390
Page 365
3 1. As a matter of urgency, officers and elected members need to work together to develop and agree the medium-term financial strategy and progress the council’s transformation plans. 2. The council needs to develop and sustain more constructive relationships between members and between members and officers. It needs to implement effective cross-party governance arrangements to ensure that it delivers the medium-term financial strategy and transformation plans. 3. The council needs to ensure that workforce planning reflects the medium-term financial strategy. 4. The council should undertake a review of its capital programme, to ensure that the timeframes for delivery are achieved going forward and that monitoring and reporting mechanisms are enhanced to drive more accurate analysis and planning around capital work. 5. The council need to continue to implement financial planning arrangements to address budget gaps, underpinned by robust financial budgeting and monitoring arrangements. 6. The council should refine its vision in light of the outcome of consultation work through the Services with Communities transformation workstream and to ensure that it focuses its activity most effectively. 7. Elected members need to exercise appropriate scrutiny at all times, take ownership for personal development plans and take up relevant training opportunities. 8. The council should continue to build on positive elements of community empowerment. It should look to increase community ownership of local neighbourhood plans and work with communities to improve how they monitor progress. 3.7 The Best Value Improvement Action Plan is largely complete with the exception of the actions linked to recommendation 3 above which are being considered further by the Hybrid Working Board following the transition to hybrid working following the pandemic. 3.8 Best Value guidance from the Scottish Government helps authorities to develop arrangements which will demonstrate continuous improvement in their performance. The previous guidance had been in place since 2004, and in March 2020 revised statutory guidance was produced which was felt to better reflect the significantly changed policy and public service delivery landscape within which local government bodies now operate. 3.9 The revised guidance reflects that achieving Best Value is increasingly dependent upon the effectiveness of partnerships and collaborative working arrangements, in addition to how well a council manages its own activities. Since the original Best Value guidance was published in 2004, there has been an increased focus on partnership and collaborative working across the public sector, with more of a requirement to work jointly to deliver shared outcomes. The revised guidance also reflects an increased emphasis on citizens and Page 365 of 390
Page 366
4 personalised services, a focus on outcomes, and a need for innovation in designing public services for the future. 3.10 Alignment of key plans and strategies with partners, an understanding of place, a commitment to reducing inequalities, empowering communities to effect change, and being able to measure improved outcomes for people who use services have increasingly become key requirements in demonstrating the achievement of Best Value. 3.11 There are five themes in the revised guidance which broadly replace the previous themes used as follows: • Vision and Leadership • Governance and Accountability • Effective Use of Resources • Partnerships and Collaborative Working • Working With Communities 3.12 When mapping the previous Best Value themes to the new themes contained in the most recent statutory guidance it is clear that the scope of Best Value as well as the environment in which local authorities deliver services has changed significantly. The substance of the original guidance and themes around value for money, procurement and commissioning, performance and governance and accountability remain integral to the demonstration of Best Value while the increased focus on vision and leadership, partnerships and collaborative working reflect the current public service landscape more fully. 3.13 There are a further two cross-cutting themes in the latest Best Value guidance that a local government body is advised to embrace across all of its activities. These are: • Sustainable Development • Fairness and Equality 3.14 The key requirements in demonstrating the achievement of Best Value against the seven themes identified in 3.11 and 3.13 are summarised as follow: 1. Vision and Leadership - Effective political and managerial leadership is central to delivering Best Value, through setting clear priorities and working effectively in partnership to achieve improved outcomes. Leaders should demonstrate behaviours and working relationships that foster a culture of cooperation, and a commitment to continuous improvement and innovation. 2. Governance and Accountability - Effective governance and accountability arrangements, with openness and transparency in decision-making, schemes of delegation and effective reporting of performance, are essential for taking informed decisions, effective scrutiny of performance and stewardship of resources. Page 366 of 390
Page 367
5 3. Effective Use of Resources - Making the best use of public resources is at the heart of delivering Best Value. With clear plans and strategies in place, and with sound governance and strong leadership, a local authority will be well placed to ensure that all of its resources are deployed to achieve its strategic priorities, meet the needs of its communities and deliver continuous improvement. 4. Partnerships and Collaborative Working - The public service landscape in Scotland requires local authorities to work in partnership with a wide range of national, regional and local agencies and interests across the public, third and private sectors. A local authority should be able to demonstrate how it, in partnership with all relevant stakeholders, provides effective leadership to meet local needs and deliver desired outcomes. It should demonstrate commitment to and understanding of the benefits gained by effective collaborative working and how this facilitates the achievement of strategic objectives. Within joint working arrangements, Best Value cannot be measured solely on the performance of a single organisation in isolation from its partners. A local authority will be able to demonstrate how its partnership arrangements lead to the achievement of Best Value. 5. Working with Communities - Local authorities, both individually and with their community planning partners, have a responsibility to ensure that people and communities are able to be fully involved in the decisions that affect their everyday lives. Community bodies – as defined in the Community Empowerment Act 2015 (section 4(9)) – must be at the heart of decision making processes that agree strategic priorities and direction. 6. Sustainable Development - Sustainable development is commonly defined as securing a balance of social, economic and environmental wellbeing in the impact of activities and decisions, and seeking to meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals provide a fuller definition and set out an internationally agreed performance framework for their achievement. Sustainable development is a fundamental part of Best Value. It should be reflected in a local authority’s vision and strategic priorities, highlighted in all plans at corporate and service level, and a guiding principle for all of its activities. Every aspect of activity in a local authority, from planning to delivery and review, should contribute to achieving sustainable development. Page 367 of 390
Page 368
6 7. Fairness and Equality - Tackling poverty, reducing inequality and promoting fairness, respect and dignity for all citizens should be key priorities for local authorities and all of their partners, including local communities. 3.15 The Accounts Commission Strategy 2021-26 sets out plans to introduce a new approach to auditing Best Value in councils from the 2022/23 financial year audit. It is intended that Best Value audit work will be fully integrated into annual audit work with the outcome of Best Value work being reported through Annual Audit Reports. These will be reviewed by the Accounts Commission to provide them with assurance on Best Value in each individual council. 4 Accounts Commission changes to Best Value Reporting 4.1 A publication on the Accounts Commission website dated 11 November 2022, ‘Why Best Value matters, now more than ever’ noted changes being introduced for Best Value Reporting as follows: Auditors will be reporting annually to the Commission on specific themes. We hope this will facilitate the exchange of ideas and performance data, as well as offering a detailed analysis of a specific aspect of the work of all councils. The first theme will be leadership. We are clear that leadership is at the centre of the difficult decisions councils need to make on future priorities and how services will be delivered. That’s why leadership – from both councillors and senior officers - will be the initial focus of our thematic audit work across all councils. Without strong leadership, councils will struggle. Another change, from October 2023, will see short reports (Section 102 reports), presented to the Accounts Commission by the Controller of Audit. There will be one s102 for each council over a four-year period. This commitment maintains a regular and consistent focus on the performance of all of Scotland’s 32 councils. It is an important principle for the Commission. 4.2 Corporate Management Team should be aware of the changes being introduced for thematic reports produced by Audit Scotland and the council specific Section 102 report to be produced over the four-year period and, given this change to the assessment of Best Value, note that further information will be provided following engagement with our newly appointed external auditor. 5 Report Implications (Resource, Digital and Risk) 5.1 Resource No additional resources are required as result of this report, however future planning activities will consider any future resource requirements. Page 368 of 390
Page 369
7 . 5.2 Digital There are no Digital issues arising from this report. 5.3 Risk The Council has a statutory duty to deliver Best Value. 5.4 Ensuring Equalities (if required a separate IIA must be completed) Whilst equalities is a key requirement for Best Value organisations, there are no direct equalities issues to be considered for this report. 5.5 Additional Report Implications (See Appendix A) See Appendix A Appendices Appendix A – Additional Report Implications Appendix B – Background information/Links Page 369 of 390
Page 370
8 APPENDIX A – Report Implications A.1 Key Priorities within the Single Midlothian Plan Midlothian Council and its Community Planning Partners have made a commitment to treat the following areas as key priorities under the Single Midlothian Plan: • Reducing inequalities in learning outcomes • Reducing inequalities in health outcomes • Reducing inequalities in economic circumstance • Reducing the impact of climate change Best Value guidance identifies two cross-cutting themes which Best Value organisations should fully embrace across all activities by which they deliver their outcomes. The cross-cutting themes are Sustainable Development and Fairness and Equality. A.2 Key Drivers for Change Key drivers addressed in this report: Holistic Working Hub and Spoke Modern Sustainable Transformational Preventative Asset-based Continuous Improvement One size fits one None of the above A.3 Key Delivery Streams Key delivery streams addressed in this report: One Council Working with you, for you Preventative and Sustainable Efficient and Modern Innovative and Ambitious None of the above A.4 Delivering Best Value The Council’s approach to transformation and continuous improvement continues to focus on Best Value. A.5 Involving Communities and Other Stakeholders Page 370 of 390
Page 371
9 The revised guidance for Best Value includes themes relating to Partnerships and Collaborative Working and Working with Communities. A.6 Impact on Performance and Outcomes The duty of Best Value in Public Services is as follows: • to make arrangements to secure continuous improvement in performance (while maintaining an appropriate balance between quality and cost); and, in making those arrangements and securing that balance, to have regard to economy, efficiency, effectiveness, the equal opportunities requirement and to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development The above considerations informed both the Medium Term financial Strategy and transformation activities. A.7 Adopting a Preventative Approach The Best Value duty supports the need to consider preventative approaches where appropriate and possible. A.8 Supporting Sustainable Development Sustainability is a key requirement for Best Value organisations and this informs the continuous improvement activities across Council. Page 371 of 390
Page 372
10 APPENDIX B Background Papers/Resource Links (insert applicable papers/links) 1. Best Value Assurance Report Midlothian Council https://www.audit- scotland.gov.uk/uploads/docs/report/2019/bv_190704_midlothian.pdf Page 372 of 390
Page 373
Council Tuesday 13 December 2022 Item 8.13 Hybrid Meetings of Council and its Committees Report by Kevin Anderson, Executive Director - Place Report for Decision 1 Recommendations Council is recommended to consider the four options presented in the report at paragraphs 3.10 and 3.11 and direct officers to implement their preferred option. 2 Purpose of Report/Executive Summary Following on from prior reports in this matter to the Council meetings on Tuesday 14 December 2021, Tuesday 24 May 2022 and Tuesday 27 September 2022, this report outlines the options and associated costs for implementing hybrid meetings of Council and its Committees. 30 November 2022 Report Contact: Saty Kaur, Chief Officer Corporate Solutions (Acting) saty.kaur@midlothian.gov.uk Marco Reece-Heal, Technical Service Delivery Manager (Acting) Marco.reece-heal@midlothian.gov.uk Page 373 of 390
Page 374
2 3 Background 3.1 A hybrid meeting is one where a portion of the participants join from a designated meeting room and another portion joins remotely, enabled by audio and video conferencing technology. This approach also facilitates online content sharing to support collaboration. 3.2 From June 2020 to October 2022, meetings of the Council and its Committees have been held virtually using the MS Teams platform. At the Business Transformation Steering Group on 18 October 2021, members in attendance instructed officers to investigate the implications of hybrid working, and findings were reported to Council at its meetings of Tuesday 14 December 2021 and Tuesday 24 May 2022. 3.3 At both meetings officers presented an option to members that totalled circa 200k, which was a mix of revenue and capital costs, for the adoption of technology and infrastructure to implement hybrid meetings. The decision of Council on Tuesday 24 May 2022 was to remit this to a Cross-Party Working Group for further deliberation. 3.4 The Cross-Party Working Group has representation from all three political parties. It met on Wednesday 31 August 2022 to consider three options: • Option 1: Return to in-person only meetings • Option 2: Virtual only meetings • Option 3: Hybrid meetings combining in-person and virtual participants The decision of members was to endorse Option 3, on the basis that the associated implementation costs were significantly lower than reported to previous Council meetings (circa £70,000 – £85,000). The Cross-Party Working Group noted that the implementation may take until March 2023, and therefore in the interim alternative arrangements for in-person meetings should be made. 3.5 The decision of the Cross-Party Working Group was reported to Council at its meeting on Tuesday 27 September 2022. Council agreed to hold its meetings of Council and Committees in-person (with the exception of Police & Fire Rescue Board and Integrated Joint Board) until hybrid working could be implemented. From 4 October 2022, in- person meetings have resumed. Page 374 of 390
Page 375
3 Financial implications 3.6 The Council currently has no technical solution in place that would enable hybrid meetings. Pre-pandemic the Council made use of webcasting technology to stream a limited number of governance meetings, however a decision was taken on 12 February 2019 to not renew the webcasting contract that was in place. It should be noted that there is a separate paper on today’s agenda where options for interim webcasting arrangements are to be considered. 3.7 In the absence of any technical solution, as well as the age of the current equipment in the Council Chamber, there are no options to facilitate hybrid meetings without financial investment to upgrade. It should also be noted at this point that due to the condition of the current equipment and infrastructure (cabling and microphones) that are required for in-person meetings and the natural life cycle of these, that upgrading will be required in the near future to facilitate in-person meetings to continue in the Council Chamber (this is estimated to be circa £10,000). 3.8 The financial implications for hybrid meetings was reported as circa £200,000 to Council in December 201 and May 2022. This is made up as follows: Description Capital £000’s Revenue £000’s Installation and configuration of Televic system, including conference management software, speaker tracking camera technology, installation of HD Pan, Tilt & Zoom cameras, video integrator codec, appropriate power supply and 16” desktop display on all desks 150 Related cabling and costs once site survey completed 30 Implementation costs and contingency 20 Annual support and maintenance 2 Technician (1 FTE) 45 Total 200 47 Secure Remote Room Gateway & Electronic Voting (optional) 4 Total (including optional voting function) 200 51 Page 375 of 390
Page 376
4 3.9 Following further investigation as instructed by Council at its meeting of 24 May 2022, officers have revised the proposed costs. These were reported to the Cross-Party Working Group at its meeting of 31 August 2022 and are as follows: Description Capital £000’s Revenue £000’s Combined annual service and lease cost which includes 125 hours of streaming, lease of 4 new cameras and the lease of hybrid webcasting hardware 17 Installation (including training) 10 Cabling costs 2 Power sources, docking stations and networking 10 Screens (2-3) 30-45 Total 52-67 17 Options appraisal 3.10 Members are asked to consider the following options for hybrid meetings of Council and its Committees: • Option 1: hybrid meetings with costs as outlined in 3.9 • Option 2: in-person meetings only with no provision to webcast or record (with predicted near future capital investment costs of £10,000 as explained in 3.7) • Option 3: in-person meetings with webcasting provision at an annual revenue cost of £17,000 with £10,000 of capital installation costs • Option 4: virtual meetings via Teams with no webcasting 3.11 A SWOT analysis of all 4 options has been carried out as follows: Page 376 of 390
Page 377
5 Option 1: Hybrid meetings with costs as outlined in 3.9 Strengths Weaknesses • Allows members and officers to dial in if unable to attend in person • Allows for face to face which can lead to more detailed discussions to inform decision making for those attendees in the Council Chamber • Promotes flexible working as per Council policy for employees • Promotes efficiencies for Council officers who can ‘dial in’ to present their item enabling them to use their time more effectively • Allows external presenters, speakers etc. (i.e. for Planning Committee) to ‘dial in’ for single items, negating travel costs and reducing carbon emissions • Aligns with the Council’s drivers for change of digital by default • Reduced energy/fuel costs for members and employees travelling to Midlothian House for in- person meetings • Aligns to the Council’s ambition of being carbon neutral by 2030 with no fuel emissions by reducing travel • Webcasting function costed into the proposal which allows members of the public to view meetings in real time or after, promoting transparency in decision making • Negates the requirement for members of the public to travel to Midlothian House for in-person meetings • Promotes accessibility and inclusivity and transparency through ease of access i.e. community members who have transport costs or live in rural areas where transport isn’t as frequent to get to Midlothian House, or those that are physically impaired • Requires new/upgraded technology and infrastructure at a cost of circa 69k-84k • Does not allow for face to face which can lead to more detailed discussions to inform decision making for those attendees that are not in the Council Chamber • Reliance on technology working when required Threats Opportunities • Annual revenue cost to be built into the ongoing budget which is challenging in the current financial climate • If a future decision is made to withdraw from Midlothian House then a valuation of the assets would be factored into any sale price but would be subject to depreciation • Can be used for other meetings such as partnership meetings, national and regional meetings and for community engagement sessions • This provision would be advantageous for other organisations/local authorities etc. and could provide an income generation stream through the hire of the Chamber when not in use for Council meetings and Committees Page 377 of 390
Page 378
6 Option 2: In-person meetings only with no provision to webcast/record Strengths Weaknesses • No additional revenue cost to the Council • Allows for face to face which can lead to more detailed discussions to inform decision making • Does not rely on technology working when required • Excludes participation from members that are unable to attend a meeting • Requires all attendees to present in-person to participate and does not promote flexibility or efficiencies • Does not align with the Council’s drivers for change of digital by default • Promotes increased travel to access Midlothian House for members, officers, external presenters which does not contribute to the Council’s commitment to carbon neutral by 2030 • No webcasting function does not allow for members of the public to access/view meetings unless they are present in the Council Chamber Threats Opportunities • Excludes members that are unable to attend a meeting • May have a negative reaction from the public who deem that Council decision making is not transparent or accessible • Likely in the near future to require investment to upgrade the existing equipment and infrastructure due to natural life cycle (circa 10k) None currently identified Option 3: In-person meetings only with webcasting provision Strengths Weaknesses • Allows for face to face which can lead to more detailed discussions to inform decision making • Webcasting function costed into the proposal which allows members of the public to view meetings in real time or after, promoting transparency in decision making • Negates the requirement for members of the public to travel to Midlothian House for in-person meetings • Webcasting promotes accessibility and inclusivity and transparency through ease of access i.e. community members who have transport costs or live in rural areas where transport isn’t as frequent to get to Midlothian House, or those that are physically impaired • Requires a revenue contract to be in place at circa 17k/year and approx. 10k of capital costs • Excludes participation from members that are unable to physically attend a meeting • Requires all attendees to present in-person to participate and does not promote flexibility or efficiencies • Does not align with the Council’s drivers for change of digital by default • Promotes increased travel to access Midlothian House for members, officers, external presenters which does not contribute to the Council’s commitment to carbon neutral by 2030 Threats Opportunities • Excludes members that are unable to attend a meeting Page 378 of 390
Page 379
7 Option 4: Virtual meeting via Teams with no webcasting function Strengths Weaknesses • No additional cost to the Council • Allows members, officers and external presenters to all attend from a remote location • Promotes flexible working as per Council policy for employees • Promotes efficiencies for Council officers who can ‘dial in’ to present their item enabling them to use their time more effectively • Allows external presenters, speakers etc. (i.e. for Planning Committee) to ‘dial in’ for single items, negating travel costs and reducing carbon emissions • Aligns with the Council’s drivers for change of digital by default • Reduced energy/fuel costs for members and employees travelling to Midlothian House for in- person meetings • Aligns to the Council’s ambition of being carbon neutral by 2030 with no fuel emissions by reducing travel • Teams allows for recording of meetings to then be archived for future viewing • Does not allow for face to face which can lead to more detailed discussions to inform decision making • No webcasting functionality does not allow members of the public to watch the meeting live • Reliant on technology always working for meetings Threats Opportunities • Does not maximise the use of the current building provision at Midlothian House • Reduces the occupancy rate of Midlothian House which contributes further to the estate rationalisation 4 Report Implications (Resource, Digital and Risk) 4.1 Resource Capital The capital expenditure cost for the chosen option would require to be added to the General Services capital plan, fully phased in 2022/23 and funded by prudential borrowing Capital £000's 1 a) Hybrid meetings (2 screens) 52 1 b) Hybrid meetings (3 screens) 67 2 In person 10 3 In person with webcasting 10 4 Virtual via Teams 0 Page 379 of 390
Page 380
8 Revenue The revenue implications along with the loan charges associated with borrowing the capital costs above are as outlined in the table below. The cost of any option selected would require to be incorporated in to the 2023/24 base budget. Revenue Loan Charges Other Total Revenue £000's £000's £000's 1a) Hybrid meetings (2 screens) 11 17 28 1b) Hybrid meetings (3 screens) 15 17 32 2 In person 4 0 4 3 In person with webcasting 4 17 21 4 Virtual via Teams 0 0 4.2 Digital Digital Services have led the scoping exercise and are fully engaged in the process. The implications are identified above in the SWOT analysis. 4.3 Risk There are different risks associated with the options above and these are listed in the SWOT analysis. One further risk is if Council wish to progress with option 1, then there are lead in times for Procurement and installation, those are to be determined and can only be confirmed if officers are directed to progress this option, and at that point further dialogue can be entered into with providers to agree a delivery plan. This is estimated to be circa 3 months. 4.4 Ensuring Equalities (if required a separate IIA must be completed) An IIA was previously undertaken for hybrid working. Accessibility impacts are detailed in the above SWOT analysis. Upon agreeing an option, the IIA will be reviewed to ensure it is reflective of the final decision. 4.4 Additional Report Implications (See Appendix A) See Appendix A Appendices Appendix A – Additional Report Implications Appendix B – Background information/Links Page 380 of 390
Page 381
9 APPENDIX A – Report Implications A.1 Key Priorities within the Single Midlothian Plan The principles of the Single Midlothian Plan is to ensure communities are able to influence how the Council directs its resources and makes decisions. In the above SWOT analysis, where relevant, the options detail the impact on communities. One of the key priorities of the Single Midlothian Plan is to reduce carbon and negate climate change. The above SWOT analysis identifies, where appropriate, the positive and negative carbon impacts. A.2 Key Drivers for Change Key drivers addressed in this report: Holistic Working Hub and Spoke Modern Sustainable Transformational Preventative Asset-based Continuous Improvement One size fits one None of the above A.3 Key Delivery Streams Key delivery streams addressed in this report: One Council Working with you, for you Preventative and Sustainable Efficient and Modern Innovative and Ambitious None of the above A.4 Delivering Best Value None identified A.5 Involving Communities and Other Stakeholders The SWOT analysis identifies positive and negative impacts on communities and other stakeholders. A.6 Impact on Performance and Outcomes None identified Page 381 of 390
Page 382
10 A.7 Adopting a Preventative Approach None identified A.8 Supporting Sustainable Development The above SWOT analysis, where appropriate, identifies sustainability impacts. Page 382 of 390
Page 383
11 APPENDIX B Background Papers/Resource Links (insert applicable papers/links) Hybrid Meetings of Council and its Committees – report to Council, 14 December 2021 Hybrid Meetings of Council and its Committees – report to Council, 24 May 2022 Hybrid Meetings of Council and its Committees – report to Council, 27 September 2022 Page 383 of 390
Page 384
Page 384 of 390
Page 385
Midlothian Council Tuesday 13 December 2022 Item 8.14 Scottish Government Education Appeal Committee Consultation Report by Fiona Robertson, Executive Director Children, Young People and Partnerships Report for Decision 1 Recommendations Council is requested to delegate authority to the Children, Young People and Partnerships Cross-party Group of members to sign off Midlothian Council’s response to the Transfer of the functions of education appeal committees to the Scottish Tribunals consultation prior to submission to the Scottish Government by 6 February 2023 2 Purpose of Report/Executive Summary This report advises members of the Education Appeal Committees consultation which was launched by the Scottish Government 15th November 2022 and plans in place to engage with key stakeholders to inform the Council’s response. Date: 29th November 2022 Report Contact: Fiona Robertson Executive Director Children, Young People and Partnerships E mail: Fiona.Robertson@midlothian.gov.uk Page 385 of 390
Page 386
3 Background 3.1 Local authorities are required to set up and maintain education appeal committees with the majority of the appeals considered relating to school admission placing requests and a smaller number to exclusions from school. 3.2 The Tribunals (Scotland) Act 2014 created a new two tier structure for devolved tribunals known collectively as the Scottish Tribunals. In Schedule 1 of the 2014 Act, Education Appeal Committees are listed as one of the tribunals, which will transfer to the Scottish Tribunals in so far as Scottish Ministers consider it appropriate. The 2014 Act contains powers to make the secondary legislation required to amend the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 and transfer the functions of appeal committees to the first tier tribunal within the Scottish Tribunals collective. The function will be transferred to the Health and Education Chamber which also houses the functions of the former Additional Support Needs Tribunals for Scotland. 3.3 The consultation on the Bill for the 2014 Act sets out the Scottish Government’s intention to create a structure to enable a range of tribunals to move under the umbrella of the Scottish Tribunals, if appropriate, and following discussions with interested parties. 3.4 Currently, appeal committees are established by a local authority under section 28D of the 1980 Act. Membership of the appeal committee is to consist of both members of the authority and persons who are not members, including parents of children of school age or persons whom the authority considers to have experience in education or who are acquainted with the educational conditions in the area of the authority. Appeal committees usually consist of elected members and local persons, often parent representatives with a strong interest/experience in the education sector. COSLA created a code of practice to ensure the quality of practice among local authorities. 3.5 The consultation seeks views on the proposal to take forward the transfer of the jurisdiction of appeal committees to the Scottish Tribunals as provided for by the 2014 Act. Considerations 3.6 The current appeal committee system means decisions on placing requests and exclusion appeals are taken at a local level with involvement of local elected members and other key representatives. There is concern that transferring cases to the Scottish Tribunal system could make the process more remote for families, less accessible and with panel members who are not fully appraised of local context, education delivery and resources. Next steps 3.7 The education service will engage with key stakeholders to inform Midlothian Council’s response to the three questions: • Do you agree that appeal committees should transfer to the Scottish Tribunals? And if so, why? Page 386 of 390
Page 387
3 • Do you consider that appeal committees should remain with local authorities but with improvements to how they operate? And if so, what changes would you like to see? • Do you consider that no changes should be made to how appeal committees operate? And if so, why? 4 Report Implications (Resource, Digital, Risk and Equalities) 4.1 Resource Not applicable at present as any impact is yet to be defined. 4.2 Digital Not applicable at present as any impact on digital resources is yet to be defined. 4.3 Risk Not applicable at present as any risk impact is yet to be defined. 4.4 Ensuring Equalities Not applicable at present. 4.5 Additional Report Implications Not applicable. Page 387 of 390
Page 388
4 APPENDIX A – Report Implications A.1 Key Priorities within the Single Midlothian Plan A.2 Key Drivers for Change Key drivers addressed in this report: Holistic Working Hub and Spoke Modern Sustainable Transformational Preventative Asset-based Continuous Improvement One size fits one None of the above A.3 Key Delivery Streams Key delivery streams addressed in this report: One Council Working with you, for you Preventative and Sustainable Efficient and Modern Innovative and Ambitious None of the above A.4 Delivering Best Value Not applicable at present as any impact is yet to be defined. A.5 Involving Communities and Other Stakeholders The Appeals Committee consultation period runs until 6th February 2023. A.6 Impact on Performance and Outcomes Not applicable at present as any impact on performance and outcomes is yet to be defined. A.7 Adopting a Preventative Approach Not applicable at present. A.8 Supporting Sustainable Development Not applicable at present. Page 388 of 390
Page 389
APPENDIX B Background Papers/Resource Links (if applicable) Education appeal committees - transfer of functions to Scottish Tribunals: consultation - gov.scot (www.gov.scot) Page 389 of 390
Page 390
Page 390 of 390