Read more about this consultation

We asked

We asked for your views on the proposed schedule of Executive Fees and Charges, to be implemented from January 2025.

You said

We received 25 responses to the online questionnaire. 25 of the respondents made a comment and the comments were:

• Social care
• This is very difficult to understand
• "What does “appointeeship “ mean?!!
• I believe that £2,000.00 per annum for ALL social care would be very fair "
• I do not agree with the charges being proposed for social care or care within the home.
• Against the idea
• no
• It is hard for people who are on benefits to pay these charges. Especially older people on pension credit. Please consider NIL or lower rates for such people. For example a green bin collection - there is a lower charge for younger people on benefits but not people on pension credit. If you keep putting up the charges, people will not be able to afford to use the services. Perhaps have an all inclusive simple package for cremation fees for those on benefits. Thanks
• please do not increase the price
• "Most of these people, like my son rely on pip and eesa.
• He doesn't have savings and in honesty if we had to pay, I would end up looking at residential which I am against. I am a nurse and struggle as it is.
• Assisting tech covers speech devices, this is their only form of communication, I m sorry but to take that away is discriminating.
• At present, respite is hard to get unless you are on a safeguarding.plan, so would mean less respite for other users as you d cut back unless at risk"
• I support the proposed increases in fees and charges. The council needs to be able to support its services by recovering costs
• The Family contribute 50% towards the care of my parents. They have no way to provide this themselves. Adding another cost to us will be hard to bare as the cost contribution is from family that also have to support themselves and young children
• Social care charges must not be increased. These are the most vulnerable and poor people in our community. They are not getting the increased 4/5% inflation raise on their incomes so these increases will push more people into poverty, and poor Disabled people into destitution.
• I do not think the proposed changes are a good idea. We pay enough council tax and people who receive care are already struggling and do not need to be burdened by increased charges.
• I personally cannot afford to pay any fees whatsoever as hardship is already bitting too deep
• Very disappointed and concerned by the proposed changes to adult social care charges.
• What a wonderful time to be increasing fees- just before the Autumn budget which is said to cut benefit to even the most disabled people. What great timing - when the disabled, like myself, are terrified as to what the future holds as it is. Brilliant.
• I disagree with the charging as I believe that adult social care is a fundamental right and should be accessible to everyone who needs it regardless of their financial situation. If you start charging, people will avoid seeking necessary support and it will lead to deterioration in health which will cause increased pressure on the NHS.
• We understand costs are rising - however this will reduce income to the poorest during the cost of living crisis.
• outrageous how can anyone afford these
• Resigned to increases
• No increase in fees and charges

We did

We reviewed the responses; Council approved the proposed executive fees and charges. The Executive Fees and Charges were authorised under the delegated authority of the Leader of the Council, Cabinet Member for Resources and Effective Council. The responses were also reviewed in this Decision - Authorisation for the proposed Executive Fees and Charges for 2025

Read more about this engagement

We asked

We asked what you thought about the section of the Barnet Loop between Colindale Avenue and West Hendon Playing Fields.

You said

There were 31 comments on the Colindale to West Hendon Playing Fields section of the Barnet Loop.

• 25% wanted wider footways and space for cycling
• 9% wanted more frequent signage for wayfinding
• 16% wanted safer ways for pedestrians and cyclists to crossroads
• 6% wanted lower traffic speeds and volumes
• 10% wanted fewer parked cars and obstructions to enable safe cycling
• 9% requested provision of cycle parking and storage
• 25% provided other comments (importance of cycling in the park, value in connecting green spaces in Colindale, more vegetation required at some parts of the route)

We did

We will improve signage and pedestrian crossings. We will also reduce parking obstructions. We will use data on occupancy and patronage to guide these changes.

Read more about this engagement

We asked

We asked what you thought about the section of the Barnet Loop between Colindale Avenue and the Barnfield River Approach by Burnt Oak station. This route was completed in 2024.

You said

There were 25 comments on the Cycleway 51 section of the Barnet Loop.

• 12% wanted wider footways and space for cycling
• 16% wanted more frequent signage for wayfinding
• 20% wanted safer ways for pedestrians and cyclists to crossroads
• 16% wanted lower traffic speeds and volumes
• 12% wanted fewer parked cars and obstructions to enable safe cycling
• 24% provided other comments (better facilities along route, dangerous due to antisocial behaviour, more benches/seating options on route)

We did

Signs have been installed to the required standard as part of the recent scheme.

Read more about this engagement.

We asked

We asked what you thought about the section of the Barnet Loop between Barnfield Road and River Approach to the Station Road / A5100 and Penhurst Gardens Roundabout.

You said

There were 40 comments on the Burnt Oak to Edgware section of the Barnet Loop.

• 28% wanted wider footways and space for cycling (particularly near hospital)
• 2% wanted more frequent signage for wayfinding
• 13% wanted safer ways for pedestrians and cyclists to crossroads
• 10% wanted lower traffic speeds and volumes (particularly near Station Road)
• 10% wanted fewer parked cars and obstructions to enable safe cycling
• 2% wanted improved lighting
• 5% requested provision of cycle parking and storage
• 30% provided other comments (Dangerous due to antisocial behaviour, fly tipping, vegetation overgrowing path, route requires too many road crossings to be safe, improve Burnt Oak Station)

We did

We will consider widening paths and upgrading surfaces, particularly along the sections near the train tracks and hospital. As well as reviewing existing fence line on hospital side and better accessibility for users.

We will consider alternative routes to reduce congestion and improve cyclist and pedestrian safety. Or provide infrastructure that provides protection for all users.

Read more about this engagement

We asked

We asked what you thought about the section of the Barnet Loop between Brent Street / A502 and Goldsmiths Avenue.

You said

There were 40 comments on the Hendon section of the Barnet Loop.

• 33% wanted wider footways and space for cycling
• 2% wanted more frequent signage for wayfinding
• 12% wanted safer ways for pedestrians and cyclists to crossroads
• 7% wanted lower traffic speeds and volumes
• 5% wanted fewer parked cars and obstructions to enable safe cycling (particularly on Shirehall Park and Fairfield Avenue)
• 3% requested provision of cycle parking and storage
• 3% wanted improved lighting
• 35% provided other comments (maintaining parts of route as pedestrian-only, dangerous due to antisocial behaviour, connect to other transport hubs like Brent Cross and Brent Cross West, concerns over disturbing wildlife, connect to other destinations)

We did

We will consider introducing parking restrictions where appropriate. We may also change the current parking layout depending on parking data.

Read more about this engagement

We asked

We asked what you thought about the section of the Barnet Loop between Dollis Road / B1462 and Brent Street / A502.

You said

There were 60 comments on the Dollis Valley South and Capital Ring section of the Barnet Loop.

• 43% wanted wider footways and space for cycling
• 13% wanted safer ways for pedestrians and cyclists to crossroads
• 5% wanted lower traffic speeds and volumes
• 2% wanted fewer parked cars and obstructions to enable safe cycling
• 2% wanted improved lighting
• 35% provided other comments (concerns over shared-use paths in parks, concerns over disturbing wildlife, fly tipping along route)

We did

Lighting improvements and surface upgrades will be considered to enhance safety, as well as consideration of wider shared-use paths where appropriate.

Read more about this engagement

We asked

We asked what you thought about the section of the Barnet Loop between Alan Drive and Dollis Road / B1462.

You said

There were 120 comments on the Dollis Valley North and Barnet Playing Fields section of the Barnet Loop.

• 28% wanted wider footways and space for cycling
• 6% wanted more frequent signage for wayfinding
• 19% wanted safer ways for pedestrians and cyclists to crossroads
• 9% wanted lower traffic speeds and volumes
• 9% wanted fewer parked cars and obstructions to enable safe cycling
• 2% requested provision of cycle parking and storage
• 1% wanted improved lighting
• 26% provided other comments (concerns over disturbing wildlife, connect other destinations, concerns over shared-use paths in parks, vegetation overgrowing path, surfaces not suitable for cycling, fly tipping along route)

We did

We will investigate resurfacing the paths and cut back overgrown vegetation as part of on-going maintenance of the scheme.

We will explore options for clearer segregation between pedestrians and cyclists on shared paths where possible. Byelaws and restrictions will be reviewed.

Read more about this engagement.

We asked

We asked what you thought about the section of the Barnet Loop between Barnet Way / A1 and Alan Drive.

You said

There were 44 comments on the London Loop section of the Barnet Loop.

• 40% wanted wider footways and space for cycling
• 8% wanted more frequent signage for wayfinding
• 8% wanted safer ways for pedestrians and cyclists to crossroads
• 2% wanted lower traffic speeds and volumes (particularly on Hendon Wood Lane)
• 2% wanted fewer parked cars and obstructions to enable safe cycling
• 40% provided other comments (surface unsuitable for cycling particularly along A1, suggest alternative route, concerns over shared-use paths)

We did

We will assess the feasibility of resurfacing the paths along the A1 and explore options for different alignments

We will investigate widening the footway and consider alternative measures to segregate cyclists and pedestrians

Read more about this engagement

We asked

We asked what you thought about the section of the Barnet Loop between Station Road and Penhurst Gardens Roundabout to Barnet Way/A1.

You said

There were 36 comments on the Edgware section of the Barnet Loop.

• 31% wanted wider footways and space for cycling
• 22% wanted more frequent signage for wayfinding
• 17% wanted safer ways for pedestrians and cyclists to crossroads (particularly pertaining to Penshurt Gardens)
• 5% wanted lower traffic speeds and volumes
• 5% wanted fewer parked cars and obstructions to enable safe cycling (particularly pertaining to Penshurt Gardens and near Edgware Station)
• 3% wanted improved lighting
• 3% requested provision of cycle parking and storage (particularly near Edgware Station)
• 14% provided other comments (antisocial behaviour in park, underpass for M1 not pleasant for pedestrians or cyclists)

We did

We will redesign the junctions at Penshurst Gardens and Hale Lane to make them safer for cyclists and pedestrians. We will also add signs to highlight cyclist priority where needed.

We will investigate the removal or redesign of barriers along the Penshurst Gardens path to improve accessibility for all users.

Cycle parking facilities will be added or enhanced near Edgware Station to encourage sustainable travel.

Parking at Edgware Station will be reviewed as part of the next phase of the design.

Read more about this consultation.

We Asked

We consulted families in receipt of a short breaks allocation on the proposed change to the way short breaks are paid for. This change entailed offering all eligible families pre-paid cards to purchase short breaks for their children and ending access to commissioned services through an hourly allowance.

You Said

In consulting, we sought to understand parents and families’ thoughts and concerns on the proposal. The consultation consisted of a questionnaire and a number of focus groups. total of 139 questionnaires were completed. All responses were from parent carers. Additionally, two focus groups were held, with parent carers and providers. These had a total attendance of 17 parent carers.

Families were also invited to share their thoughts directly through contacting Family Services. Key findings from the questionnaire included:

· 41% of respondents agreed with the proposal

· 31% of respondents disagreed with the proposal

· 28% of respondents stated that they were either unsure, or neither agreed nor disagreed

Questions and concerns were also raised regarding the impact that the change would have on the number of hours that families could access via a financial allocation on a pre-paid card. The full consultation report, detailing the findings can be found here.

We Did

The above findings informed the considerations and mitigations within the report presented to Cabinet and supported in the decision made.

On 18th November 2024, Cabinet made the decision that from 1 April 2025, all families eligible for short breaks will be offered an allocation via a pre-paid card. The Cabinet decision was made on the basis of this being the most equitable option for our families, and on support being made available to families through the change.

We will no longer be offering 90 hours/ 15 days with approved providers. This means that the hour-based allowance system with approved providers will no longer be available. Support will be made available to any families who require it, throughout the process of transitioning to pre-paid cards.

Read more about the Cabinet decision.