Harringay, Haringey - So Good they Spelt it Twice!
Haringey Council cited as top five spender for web redesigns
A story in the Telegraph this morning picked up the issue of councils spending large sums on website redesigns.
A redesign and revamp of the technology underlying a council website costs half of the councils which replied to a Telegraph survey less than £15,000, but the paper found 10 examples of councils paying between £100,000 and £600,000.
Haringey Council was in the top five spenders:
Birmingham City Council - £2.8 million (Completed in 2009)
Essex County Council - £800,000
Medway Council - £600,000
London Borough of Haringey - £540,000
Northamptonshire County Council - £450,000
The Telegraph says:
"Haringey Council spent more than £500,000 on a redesign in 2003, which included annual recurring costs of up to £200,000 per year, not including staff salaries.
Haringey has said it intends to cut the cost of some of these services, including a £36,925 per annum contract to provide webcasting and video hosting.
"The council has already started to use YouTube, and has put the webcasting contract out to tender again.
"A spokesperson from Haringey told the Telegraph: "Where real savings can be made without affecting service quality, usability and our legal requirements then we will certainly look to using alternatives".
Haringey also secured a top five place in a piece of research done earlier in the year and covered by the Telegraph.
This study looked at website spending by councils in the 2008/2009 financial year:
Top five councils for website spending:
1. Westminster City Council - £728,584
2. Barking and Dagenham - £335,811
3. Norfolk County Council - £233,961.97
4. Knowsley Council - £220,000
5. Haringey Council - £208,480
The redesign expenditure is now seven years back (and I imagine it comes from decisions taken even longer ago). The more recent spending figures, it seems, may stem from that decision.
We know little about the whys and wherefores of the decision and it's likely that whatever the logic that underpinned it, most of the people responsible are no longer in post anyway. So, I'm not minded to harp on about that expenditure.
What it does point to though is the need for Haringey, along with all councils, to consider what might be the most effective ways to derive the efficiencies of connecting with and serving residents online.
I'd welcome some insight into current thinking from the Council and have asked for comment.
A redesign and revamp of the technology underlying a council website costs half of the councils which replied to a Telegraph survey less than £15,000, but the paper found 10 examples of councils paying between £100,000 and £600,000.
Haringey Council was in the top five spenders:
Birmingham City Council - £2.8 million (Completed in 2009)
Essex County Council - £800,000
Medway Council - £600,000
London Borough of Haringey - £540,000
Northamptonshire County Council - £450,000
The Telegraph says:
"Haringey Council spent more than £500,000 on a redesign in 2003, which included annual recurring costs of up to £200,000 per year, not including staff salaries.
Haringey has said it intends to cut the cost of some of these services, including a £36,925 per annum contract to provide webcasting and video hosting.
"The council has already started to use YouTube, and has put the webcasting contract out to tender again.
"A spokesperson from Haringey told the Telegraph: "Where real savings can be made without affecting service quality, usability and our legal requirements then we will certainly look to using alternatives".
Haringey also secured a top five place in a piece of research done earlier in the year and covered by the Telegraph.
This study looked at website spending by councils in the 2008/2009 financial year:
Top five councils for website spending:
1. Westminster City Council - £728,584
2. Barking and Dagenham - £335,811
3. Norfolk County Council - £233,961.97
4. Knowsley Council - £220,000
5. Haringey Council - £208,480
The redesign expenditure is now seven years back (and I imagine it comes from decisions taken even longer ago). The more recent spending figures, it seems, may stem from that decision.
We know little about the whys and wherefores of the decision and it's likely that whatever the logic that underpinned it, most of the people responsible are no longer in post anyway. So, I'm not minded to harp on about that expenditure.
What it does point to though is the need for Haringey, along with all councils, to consider what might be the most effective ways to derive the efficiencies of connecting with and serving residents online.
I'd welcome some insight into current thinking from the Council and have asked for comment.
Tags for Forum Posts: haringey council website
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Clive Carter on
-
What I'd like to know is how much the Borough spends on software licences with a certain well-known company known to have a criminal conviction (in the United States) for abusing monopoly position in the marketplace.
-
Permalink Reply by Lesley Ramm on
-
They should obviously get best value for money but i do think Haringey has the best council website i have accessed. It must save on paper if they can reach more people via IT means.
-
-
Haringey Council's website is not bad.
If the Council Majority Group have to produce Haringey People magazine, they could save much expense if they simply produced a PDF version and put the propaganda online for downloading by those who want to believe it.
Such a move would at least save the cost of paper, the cost of printing and the cost of distribution.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on
-
I had a look at what they got for their money and the Barking and Dagenham adult social care section of their website is a fantastic example of how to do it right.
-
-
I know the libDems want to get rid of Haringey People but i personally like it. However the council could distribute online and only post to those who have no IT access to save money.
-
Permalink Reply by Omotn on
-
"whatever microscopic % of my council tax"
many a mickle maks a muckle.
Other people's money, etc.
-
-
Continuing the HP tangent - this month's edition isn't too bad - the only really blatant politicking I spotted was the repeated announcement, for the umpteenth time, that Hornsey Town Hall is saved for mankind. It hasn't been ever since these announcements started, and granting yourself planning permission (all that has happened and not explicitly mentioned in the article) does not constitute a renaissance.
-
Permalink Reply by Lydia R on
-
Will Hoyle makes a good point that the Haringey website might not justify its expense because of low internet access locally. I seem to remember being told two or three years ago that internet use in Tottenham [i.e. the general area of greatest need] was just about the lowest in the country, at a quite horrendous 10 percent. The figures for all of Haringey are probably saved from being totally embarrassing by the west end of the borough [i.e. the general area of least need]. Maybe the Tottenham figures have changed a bit since then but I shouldn't think by much.
-
-
Over £200k p.a. is a lot of money in recurring costs. According to the website stats page "In 2009/10 the Haringey website was visited over 2 million times by over 1,327,606 unique visitors" so that's about 10p per visit or 15p per person, assuming we don't have to amortise the original £500,000.
I wonder if Haringey use the Wikipedia definition of a visit. If everyone in Haringey looked at the website once this would account for <300,000 visitors. So are there a million other "visitors" who need to look at Haringey information?
Whatever the stats mean does it constitute good value? I guess it does if it means hundreds of visits to real life council offices are averted and more than £200k is saved each year in staff time, or if some benefit arises to a website visitor which would not otherwise have arisen, or . . . . or some combination of these and other benefits. For myself I use the planning application pages a lot, (objecting to planning applications is a sort of hobby of mine) - this ocnstitutes a considerable disbenefit to both the council, who have to deal with my complaints, and to the applicants, should any of the complaints ever prove justified.
-
-
I have used the LBH website facility to submit the following request (ref HC-100664 target date for a response 16th September)
Summary: What are the costs and benefits of the LBH website?
Details: Recent reports in the press suggest that LBH is a relatively high spender on webiste facilities. Please can you tell me the cost of the most recent website redesign, and when this took place. Also, can you tell me the annual ongoing cost of maintaining the website, and how this is divided between internal and external costs. Can you also tell me what cost is incurred annually by content management, and what amount goes on hardware and software support and licences.
I would also like to know how the benefits of the website are measured. I can see from the statistics the number of visits and visitors. I find it hard to visualise well over a million different people making access to the site. What does "unique visitor" figure actually mean.
Has LBH assessed how much money has been saved by the website, as visitors use its facilities rather than council offices, for example? Has LBH assessed the non financial or intangible benefits of the site? Please tell me ehat these benefit are.
Thanks
-
-
I did sort of cover this when talking about planning applications. Obvioulsy the increased man hours are justified if the info in the answers brings a sufficient benefit. I have also looked at
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/chief_executive_job_3#incomin... which is a specific question on a website set up especially to enable FoI requests. LBH has acknowledged and then ignored this request. RBKC consider Petrona to be vexatious. http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/chief_executive_job_4#incomin...
© 2026 Created by Hugh.
Powered by
