COUNCIL
26 JUNE 2019
MEMBERS QUESTIONS
1 Question from Councillor Mehboob Khan, to Councillor Sizwe James, Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Growth
Please can you explain the basis of the Council’s involvement in the New Capital Quay (NCQ) cladding dispute in terms of the legal framework and a duty of care towards its residents?
Reply –
I thank Councillor Khan for his question.
The Council has a general legal responsibility to safeguard its residents with further specific responsibility under the Housing Act (2004) to ensure that homes in the area meet certain legal standards.
The MHCLG instructed Local authorities in June 2017 to identify buildings within their borough that had Aluminium Composite Material (ACM) in their composition. The Council collected this information and continues to keep MHCLG up to date with the latest updates with regards to remedial work at affected sites.
ITEM NO: 10 COUNCIL
26 JUNE 2019
MEMBERS QUESTIONS
2 Question from Councillor Mehboob Khan, to Councillor Sizwe James, Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Growth
Does the Council have any statutory powers, duties or function for oversight of the remedial works at NCQ and what is basis for this conclusion?
Reply –
I thank Councillor Khan for his question.
The Council does not have any oversight of the remedial works taking place at New Capital Quay given that the approved inspector for this project is being conducted by a private firm.
The Council respects Galliard’s decision to use an Approved Inspector independent of the Council and it should be noted that the Council cannot provide the same contractual warranties as a private building control firm
ITEM NO: 10 COUNCIL
26 JUNE 2019
MEMBERS QUESTIONS
3 Question from Councillor Mehboob Khan, to Councillor Sizwe James, Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Growth
As part of the Council’s development control process did Galliard notify the Council of any change to materials, or were the ACM cladding and Kingspan K15 insulation always part of the design of NCQ approved plans?
Reply –
I thank Councillor Khan for his question.
Due to the age of the applications the Council would require information to be brought out of archive in order to confirm this. Importantly however, the building control process for New Capital Quay was completed by a privately approved inspector. Therefore any review of the originally submitted materials or any change in materials beyond its aesthetic appearance would be completed by this party.
Regarding the recladding project, any aesthetic changes from the originally approved materials granted in January 2019 would require planning permission.
ITEM NO: 10 COUNCIL
26 JUNE 2019
MEMBERS QUESTIONS
4 Question from Councillor Mehboob Khan, to Councillor Sizwe James, Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Growth
Has the Council had sight of the fire reports of the approved inspector (NHBC) following the recent fire testing? If so, it is unclear to residents as to why their request to Galliards for the various fire expert reports have been refused. Please can this documentation be shared, if this is possible?
Reply –
I thank Councillor Khan for his question.
The Council has not had sight of the fire reports of the approved inspector (NHBC). The Council were advised within the FAQs released by NHBC in July 2018 that "in line with its normal practice, NHBC will not be disclosing its expert’s report.”.
ITEM NO: 10 COUNCIL
26 JUNE 2019
MEMBERS QUESTIONS
5 Question from Councillor Mehboob Khan, to Councillor Sizwe James, Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Growth
Please can the Council enquire with Galliard who is the project manager for the NCQ remedial works, assuming there is one. Please can the Council provide copies of the documentation exchanges and correspondence between the Council and Galliard as part of the remedial works?
Reply –
I thank Councillor Khan for his question.
The Council will request that Galliards share information regarding the identity of the Project Manager. In terms of documents and correspondence it is good practice for the Council to obtain consent from the relevant person/ organisation before providing disclosure. The Council has written to Galliards requesting this consent in addition to requesting details of the project manager.
ITEM NO: 10 COUNCIL
26 JUNE 2019
MEMBERS QUESTIONS
6 Question from Councillor Mehboob Khan, to Councillor Sizwe James, Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Growth
Galliard have refused to rule out passing any costs of remedial works, including waking watch, on to residents, in my view this is unacceptable and can the Cabinet Member confirm his understanding of this situation?
Reply –
I thank Councillor Khan for his question.
As far as the Council are aware, Galliards have not indicated to the Council that they will pass on any costs for remedial works onto residents, including the costs for a waking watch.
ITEM NO: 10 COUNCIL
26 JUNE 2019
MEMBERS QUESTIONS
7 Question from Councillor Mehboob Khan, to Councillor Sizwe James, Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Growth
As a Labour-led Council, we are supportive of Labour Party Policy that there should be a December 2019 deadline for remedial works to be completed or proof of substantial progress by then. Given the current timetable will the Council consider all legal avenues to ensure Galliards comply with this reasonable timeline?
8 Question from Councillor Mehboob Khan, to Councillor Sizwe James, Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Growth
Will the Council also lobby the government alongside other stakeholders to adopt this Labour Party policy and to provide additional compulsory purchase powers to councils such as ours to ensure compliance with the Labour Party timetable?
Reply –
I thank Councillor Khan for his questions.
The Council have reviewed the project schedule that has been submitted by Galliards who have previously assured us that they remain committed to removing the cladding as quickly and as professionally as possible. Given the size and complexity of the project the Council understands its completion will take a time. This is likely to exceed the December 2019 deadline. The Council will however continue to liaise with the building owner to monitor progress and lobby the government alongside other stakeholders to adopt the Labour Party policy.
ITEM NO: 10 COUNCIL
26 JUNE 2019
MEMBERS QUESTIONS
9 Question from Councillor Mehboob Khan, to Councillor Sizwe James, Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Growth
Please can the Council provide regular communication to all the NCQ residents to show how it is effectively discharging its responsibilities and standing up for local people?
Reply –
I thank Councillor Khan for his question.
The Council is not directly responsible for the works at New Capital Quay. The Council will ask the building owner to maintain good communication with all residents and stakeholders.
ITEM NO: 10 COUNCIL
26 JUNE 2019
MEMBERS QUESTIONS
10 Question from Councillor Mehboob Khan, to Councillor Sizwe James, Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Growth
In 2 years insurance cost to New Capital Quay (NCQ residents) has increased by 31%, excess for water leaks has increased to £2,500. General leaks in the first few years should be fixed by the Developer and paid for by the NHBC. Yet residents believe they have been met from the property insurance (thus the increase).
Please can the Council ascertain if this type of increase is normal, i.e. have other developments in the Royal Borough of Greenwich had similar increases? If not can the Council ascertain why these changes to the insurance arrangements have occurred at NCQ?
Reply –
I thank Councillor Khan for his question.
The Council does not have access to information relating to the insurance premiums being charged at private sector developments within the borough. Should you wish to investigate, the Leaseholder Advisory Service provide free advice and resources on specific areas of residential leasehold law, including insurance.
ITEM NO: 10 COUNCIL
26 JUNE 2019
MEMBERS QUESTIONS
11 Question from Councillor Mehboob Khan, to Councillor Sizwe James, Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Growth
Please can the Council consider placing a moratorium on any new building by Galliards in this Borough? Only to be lifted following a successful resolution of all the problems at NCQ to protect other residents in the Borough?
Reply –
I thank Councillor Khan for his question.
The Council does not consider this to be a proportionate response given the commitments the building owner has made to rectify the issues found at the NCQ Development.
ITEM NO: 10 COUNCIL
26 JUNE 2019
MEMBERS QUESTIONS
12 Question from Councillor Mehboob Khan, to Councillor Sizwe James, Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Growth
Is the Council concerned it will be joined in by either party in the legal action being taken by residents against Galliards?
Reply –
I thank Councillor Khan for his question.
No. However, it is for either party to determine whether they wish to join the Council as a party and on what basis. Any such proceedings will be strongly contested by the Council.
ITEM NO: 10 COUNCIL
26 JUNE 2019
MEMBERS QUESTIONS
13 Question from Councillor Mehboob Khan, to Councillor Danny Thorpe, Leader of the Council
From as early as 1800’s gay, lesbian and transgender Muslims have shaped the history of Islam through literature, the arts, military campaigns, astronomy and other social disciplines, shows the bankruptcy of thinking that makes up the view that being gay and Muslim are two separate and incompatible things.
The vast majority of British Muslims have socially liberal values and strongly support school projects which challenge bigotry.
Please can the Leader of the Council comment upon the template letter being circulated and the importance of the benefits of schools encouraging students to tackle all forms of bigotry, racism and intolerance?
Reply –
I thank Councillor Khan for his question.
The letter that Councillor Khan is referring to is a letter that some parents are being encouraged to use to withdraw their children from Sex and Relationships Education lessons in school.
From Sept 2020, it will be mandatory to provide a Personal, Social, Health and Economic (PSHE) education that covers:
Health Education and Relationships Education (in all primary schools) Relationships and Sex Education or RSE (in all secondary schools).
We believe that Sex and Relationships Education is lifelong learning about, emotions, relationships, sexuality and sexual health. It involves acquiring information, developing skills and forming positive beliefs, values and attitudes
A group has been set up to oversee the delivery of the new curriculum and to support schools with curriculum development, building relationships with parents/carers and the community. The group will have representatives from ITEM NO: 10 public health, Children’s services, hate crime partnership, communication, voluntary sector groups, and community safety.
The aim moving forward is to ensure that children and young people continue to have access to effective and positive RSE and that we work together to mitigate against any potential disruption to effective RSE in schools including a negative community response.
ITEM NO: 10 COUNCIL
26 JUNE 2019
MEMBERS QUESTIONS
14 Question from Councillor Matt Hartley, to Councillor Danny Thorpe, Leader of the Council
Can the Leader of the Council take this opportunity to explain his Cabinet reshuffle? In particular can he provide the rationale for
1) His decision to remove Anti-Poverty as a dedicated cabinet brief 2) His decision to remove the Children's Services portfolio from the Deputy Leader and merge it with another big portfolio (Community Safety)
Reply –
I thank Councillor Hartley for his question.
The allocation of responsibilities and portfolios is the responsibility of the Leader of the Council. That has been the case for as long as I have been a member of this Council. Throughout any administration new priorities emerge and we must adapt to address them effectively. I am not aware that any Leader of the Council has ever consulted the minority party over Cabinet responsibilities nor has the Conservative bench consulted me on how portfolios are allocated.
In relation to Anti-Poverty, Councillor Lekau concluded the work she was doing following the findings of our Fairness Commission. I am taking this work forward under the umbrella of the Social Mobility Board, working alongside the whole of the Cabinet.
Over the past year, we have seen significant issues around knife crime and serious youth violence and the impact that adverse childhood experiences have on young people who are likely to be affected. I have therefore taken the opportunity to use these synergies and bring together those portfolios.
I’m not sure what measure Opposition members are using to determine a “big portfolio” but this is not a judgement that I recognise. I can assure all members of the Council that the Cabinet are fully engaged in implementing our manifesto, working with both members and officers to do so. ITEM NO: 10 COUNCIL
26 JUNE 2019
MEMBERS QUESTIONS
15 Question from Councillor Matt Hartley, to Councillor Danny Thorpe, Leader of the Council
Can the Leader of the Council provide details of the Social Mobility Board which he answered, when asked at the Council Annual Meeting, will replace the dedicated Anti-Poverty cabinet portfolio? Who sits on it, how many times does it meet, will it meet in public, and if not how will it be held accountable for its decisions?
Reply –
I thank Councillor Hartley for his question.
The Social Mobility Board has been set up to provide strategic guidance and oversight for the successful delivery and ongoing development of the Council’s Social Mobility Agenda, following the agreement of Cabinet to the Social Mobility Delivery Plan.
The Board is chaired by the Leader of the Council and includes the Cabinet Member for Adults, Social Care & Health and the Director of Communities & Environment. Officers and other Cabinet Members are invited to attend, where relevant to the issues/projects being discussed.
The Board meets every 2 months, with each meeting focussing on 2 of the 8 themes set out in the agreed Delivery Plan. The meeting themes and indicative dates of meetings are shown below.
Theme Indicative Date Improving Opportunities and Skills for Children and Young People 30/05 Improving Health and Wellbeing and Build Community Networks Improve the Financial Resilience of Families and Individuals WC 22/07 Digital Inclusion
ITEM NO: 10 Help at Home Building more Social and Affordable WC 23/09 Homes and Improve the Quality of Homes Support for Small and Medium Sized Enterprises WC 11/11 Support for Unemployed and Underemployed
The Board does not meet in public. The implementation of the Social Mobility Delivery Plan is scheduled to be scrutinised by the Housing & Anti-poverty Scrutiny Panel (February 2020 – date to be confirmed).
The Strategy and Delivery Plan is the result of extensive research, which has used a number of consultation methods to identify areas of need and develop recommendations in response to the need. This has included consultation (both public and internal) to establish the broad vision and objectives of the Delivery Plan – helping to identify the 8 themes. Previous work by the Greenwich Fairness Commission and subsequent Review and Development Group also helped to inform analysis. Following consultation, in-depth analysis of national, local and service-specific data and information on the 8 themes were reviewed and analysed in cross-Directorate working groups, specific to each theme. Over 50 Council officers contributed to this work, helping to develop and shape the recommendations.
ITEM NO: 10 COUNCIL
26 JUNE 2019
MEMBERS QUESTIONS
16 Question from Councillor Matt Hartley, to Councillor Danny Thorpe, Leader of the Council
As Chair of the Social Mobility Board, and given the Council's welcome Social Mobility Strategy that has only recently been published, what is the Leader of the Council's view of Jeremy Corbyn's decision to drop social mobility as a goal for the Labour Party?
Reply –
I thank Councillor Hartley for his question.
When Theresa May became Prime Minister, she promised to deal with the ‘burning injustices’ that ravaged communities up and down our Country. As she concludes her short period as Prime Minister, it is abundantly clear that far from tackling these injustices, Tory policies delivered since 2010 have just fanned the flames of austerity and destroyed people’s lives in the process.
It is, therefore, no surprise that the Leader of the Opposition would seek to misrepresent comments made by the Leader of the Labour Party.
The Government’s Social Mobility Commission stated in their most recent state of the nation report:
“Social mobility has stagnated over the last four years at virtually all stages from birth to work. Being born privileged in Britain means that you are likely to remain privileged. Being born disadvantaged, however, means that you will have to overcome a series of barriers to ensure that you and your children are not stuck in the same trap.”
I would therefore politely suggest that Councillor Hartley focuses his attention on the appalling actions of his party, rather than attempting to misconstrue what has been said by the Leader of the Labour Party.
ITEM NO: 10 COUNCIL
26 JUNE 2019
MEMBERS QUESTIONS
17 Question from Councillor Matt Hartley, to Councillor Christine Grice, Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources
Can the Cabinet Member provide an update on the work of the Budget Recovery Board, and in particular, its work to address overspends in adult social care?
Reply –
I thank Councillor Hartley for his question.
Following a number of years whereby service directorates have continually faced overspend pressures, offset largely by a significant underspend on Treasury Management and one offs, the Budget Recovery Board has been created to:
challenge departmental overspends assist departments in formulating robust action plans determine effects upon the sustainability of the Council’s Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS).
A range of questions are posed to understand the broad nature of the service (priority level, other ways of delivery, service plan & outputs / outcomes / KPIs etc), before moving onto a set of standard and departmentally specific questions – examples of the generic areas include:
revenue spend staffing income debt balance sheet items savings procurement volumes.
ITEM NO: 10 The work to date has highlighted how the council can improve outcomes for its service users and in particular, identified savings of £5m in health and adults, plus over £2m in childrens services. A third board (environment) is currently analysing data, with the remaining boards rolling out this year - all having a role in the council’s forthcoming new Medium Term Financial Strategy.
ITEM NO: 10 COUNCIL
26 JUNE 2019
MEMBERS QUESTIONS
18 Question from Councillor Matt Hartley, to Councillor Christine Grice, Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources
Can the Cabinet Member provide an update on department's progress in Q1 of the 2019/20 year in achieving the £2.5 million / year back office efficiency savings agreed in this year's budget?
Reply –
I thank Councillor Hartley for his question.
Since we are still in the first quarter of the financial year, it is not possible to provide a definitive update at this stage. Our ability to deliver “back office / efficiency” savings, since austerity started almost a decade ago, has become increasingly more difficult with each year that passes, however, progress is being made and when the Council reports on its revenue monitoring position later in the year, it will include specific reference to the progress of this target.
ITEM NO: 10 COUNCIL
26 JUNE 2019
MEMBERS QUESTIONS
19 Question from Councillor Matt Hartley, to Councillor Christine Grice, Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources
I understand that the final figure of additional income received through the 100% London Business Rate Pool in 2017/18 was £4 million - twice the originally forecasted figure of £2 million - and that the higher amount was used to plug the gap in balancing the budget for 2018/19. Given this higher amount that materialised, has there been a new forecast of the additional income we can expect for 2018/19 on the 75% basis, given that this was forecast at £2 million as well?
Reply –
I thank Councillor Hartley for his question.
The forecast of an additional £2m for business rate pool income for 2019/20 came late in the budget setting process and increased the one off resources that could be employed in 2019/20. At Cabinet on 26 February 2019, it was agreed these resources are to be utilised as follows:
to ensure the continuity of the Emergency Support Scheme (£0.750m) to be held against overspend pressures (£1.250m)
The pooling arrangement is dependent upon information from each borough across London and processed by the administrators of the pool to provide a consolidated position.
There is no further update at this stage, as monitoring has yet to be completed by boroughs this year.
ITEM NO: 10 COUNCIL
26 JUNE 2019
MEMBERS QUESTIONS
20 Question from Councillor Matt Hartley, to Councillor Jackie Smith, Cabinet Member for Children’s Services and Community Safety
The Cabinet Member has been appointed to the Children's Services brief shortly after Ofsted's finding of Hawksmoor Primary School to be inadequate. Can she provide an update on the Council's actions in response to this?
Reply –
I thank Councillor Hartley for his question.
Following the retirement of the previous Headteacher a partnership arrangement was put in place with Linton Mead. This partnership has resulted in improvement to the conditions for learning, the provision, safeguarding and the curriculum.
We were very disappointed with the Ofsted outcome and do not believe it is a true reflection of the school, not recognising the practice, the experience of the newly appointed leadership team and the improvements secured thus far. The Governing Board have challenged the Ofsted outcome and exercised their right to complain to Ofsted about the judgement and the conduct of the Lead Inspector.
A review of the Pupil Premium expenditure has taken place (as recommended by Ofsted) and a review of governance has been scheduled (as recommended by Ofsted).
The school improvement team has worked with teachers and leaders to both further enhance the quality of teaching and learning and to support the need for improved outcomes. Clerking and governance support has taken place.
A high level of support will continue from the LA to ensure that the improvement journey continues.
ITEM NO: 10 I have further sent a letter to the Secretary of State for Education and the Regional Schools Commissioner stating that in the case of Hawksmoor School the local authority has the capacity and expertise to support the school.
ITEM NO: 10 COUNCIL
26 JUNE 2019
MEMBERS QUESTIONS
21 Question from Councillor Matt Hartley, to Councillor Jackie Smith, Cabinet Member for Children’s Services and Community Safety
Can the Cabinet Member provide an update on the John Roan's conversion to an academy, and outline what steps she is taking to ensure that no further days of schooling are lost to strike action?
Reply –
I thank Councillor Hartley for his question.
The United Learning Trust (ULT) has now been appointed by the Secretary of State as the sponsor for The John Roan. It is anticipated by the Trust and the DfE that the transfer will happen on the 1st September 2019. There is currently a consultation with staff happening regarding the TUPE process.
In regard to strike action, the NEU has proposed six further days of strike action this term. We are mindful of the impact this will have on the children who attend the John Roan and are giving support to the Head through this period. We are not in a position to oppose strike action.
ITEM NO: 10 COUNCIL
26 JUNE 2019
MEMBERS QUESTIONS
22 Question from Councillor Matt Hartley, to Councillor Jackie Smith, Cabinet Member for Children’s Services and Community Safety
As the Cabinet Member will be aware, the 'John Roan Resists' group, which appears to be led by a small number of Trade Union activists at the school, have fly-posted personalised attacks on street furniture as part of their campaign against the statutory conversion of the school to an Academy. What action is she taking, as part of her handling of the situation at the John Roan as the Cabinet Member, to prevent this activity from recurring?
Reply –
I thank Councillor Hartley for his question.
Fly posting is an illegal activity and we would have no hesitation in using the full force of law if necessary. We are as dismayed as you about the fly posting and graffiti on street furniture. I also know that local residents are removing posters and have expressed their annoyance to me.
On a practical note we are liaising with the relevant Council departments to get the posters removed as soon as we are made aware. This is a huge drain on our resources and diverts our environment teams from dealing with other environmental issues such as fly tips across the borough.
ITEM NO: 10 COUNCIL
26 JUNE 2019
MEMBERS QUESTIONS
23 Question from Councillor Matt Hartley, to Councillor Jackie Smith, Cabinet Member for Children’s Services and Community Safety
According to an FOI request conducted by the News Shopper, Greenwich Council was found to have "unnecessarily” delayed an SEN child's transition between schools for 13 months", resulting in a £1,350 pay out. Can the Cabinet Member account for this event and explain what actions were put in place to ensure this is not repeated?
Reply –
I thank Councillor Hartley for his question.
The situation described above occurred in 2017. This was a very complex situation with a long history. We are committed to ensuring there is no delay when children transition between schools and since this point we have put a number of measures in place to meet this assurance.
We have increased the size of the SEND team an appointed a dedicated officer within the team who is responsible for complex cases and children who move into the borough. A complex case panel chaired by the Assistant Director is now in place and there is much better tracking of children and young people in regard to placement, provision and progress. If there is ever a delay when transiting a young person then individual tuition is put into place to bridge the gap.
ITEM NO: 10 COUNCIL
26 JUNE 2019
MEMBERS QUESTIONS
24 Question from Councillor Matt Hartley, to Councillor Jackie Smith Cabinet Member for Children’s Services and Community Safety
The Council and Cabinet Member should be commended for working with the Metropolitan Police to prosecute two shops in the borough found to be selling knives to young people through so-called "test purchases". Can the Cabinet Member confirm this exercise is ongoing, and provide further details?
Reply –
I thank Councillor Hartley for his question.
I can advise that the Council Trading Standards team will continue to work with local police teams and London Trading Standards (LTS) – an umbrella body for Trading Standards in London – in order to undertake “test purchase” operations within the Borough.
This is a priority area of focus for the Trading Standards team, the Council and wider Safer Greenwich Partnership. We are pleased with the successes we have achieved but clearly continued scrutiny of retailers within the Borough is needed and we will continue to work with partners across London, including to tackle those who sell knives online.
We are extremely proud of the work between our Trading Standards Team and the local police cadets as part of their “test purchase” operations across the Borough. This is not just limited to the sale of knives but also covers a wider range of age-restricted goods, including alcohol, fireworks, and tobacco.
I would also like to highlight that that a ‘Responsible Retailers Agreement’ will be launched by the Mayor of London this summer to which all retailers will be invited to sign up with a particular emphasis on smaller, independent businesses.
ITEM NO: 10 COUNCIL
26 JUNE 2019
MEMBERS QUESTIONS
25 Question from Councillor Matt Hartley, to Councillor Denise Scott-McDonald, Cabinet Member for Air Quality, Sustainability and Transport
Can the Cabinet Member confirm that the Council remains in favour of the Silvertown Tunnel?
Reply –
I thank Councillor Hartley for his question.
The Royal Borough supports the development of a package of Thames River Crossings to improve access to key employment areas and address severance. Transport for London’s Silvertown Tunnel forms one part of that package.
The current Blackwall tunnel frequently causes significant congestion – as far back as the Sun in the Sands roundabout. Queuing traffic emits significantly more greenhouse gas, by smoothing traffic flow it is anticipated the tunnel will reduce emissions. This effect will be combined with user charging, to stop the tunnel generating unnecessary new trips.
The Tunnel is also an important public transport scheme. One lane in each direction is reserved for buses and HGVs. Transport for London is required to provide at least 20 buses per hour, in each direction, through the tunnels during peak periods. This will open up a raft on new bus connections across the river, where only a single bus currently runs.
The Silvertown Tunnel is part of meeting our sustainable transport objectives and helping Royal Greenwich thrive.
ITEM NO: 10 COUNCIL
26 JUNE 2019
MEMBERS QUESTIONS
26 Question from Councillor Matt Hartley, to Councillor Denise Scott-McDonald, Cabinet Member for Air Quality, Sustainability and Transport
How is the environmental impact of the local authority's own services and operations measured? Can the Cabinet Member provide any relevant recent data on this?
Reply –
I thank Councillor Hartley for his question.
The Council’s environmental impact is measured in accordance with the latest guidance on Environmental Reporting issued by DEFRA, and is aligned with international standards, such as the Greenhouse Gas Protocol.
The latest report relates to financial year 16/17 and is published on the Council’s website.
The publication of subsequent years’ information will follow when the necessary data analysis is complete.
ITEM NO: 10 COUNCIL
26 JUNE 2019
MEMBERS QUESTIONS
27 Question from Councillor Nigel Fletcher, to Councillor Danny Thorpe, Leader of the Council
What progress has been made in negotiations over the proposed acquisition of Avery Hill Winter Garden?
Reply –
I thank Councillor Fletcher for his question.
As you know the Royal Borough of Greenwich is committed to retaining the Avery Hill campus as a site for education and preserving the Winter Gardens as a historical gem for all to enjoy.
Royal Greenwich are continuing to make good progress with negotiations with the University of Greenwich. At the same time, the Council is exploring options for the operation of the facility in the event that the transfer concludes successfully. Public engagement regarding this will commence in July at Avery Hill Parkfest. This work is critical to the success of the negotiations and future of the site, therefore it is too early to provide any further detail at this stage.
The Council is committed to consulting on the arrangements and future of the site once we are in a position to do so. In the meantime the University is underway with preparatory work related to the Asset of Community Value (ACV) status of the building.
ITEM NO: 10 COUNCIL
26 JUNE 2019
MEMBERS QUESTIONS
28 Question from Councillor Nigel Fletcher, to Councillor Danny Thorpe, Leader of the Council
Will the Leader of the Council list the new list of responsibilities of each member of his Cabinet, and provide an explanation for the changes?
Reply –
I thank Councillor Fletcher for his question.
Portfolio allocations and responsibilities were published as part of the Council’s Annual Meeting in line with the Council’s Constitution.
All Cabinet members are focused on delivering the priorities outlined in the Corporate Plan, which was agreed by Cabinet last year.
ITEM NO: 10 COUNCIL
26 JUNE 2019
MEMBERS QUESTIONS
29 Question from Councillor Nigel Fletcher, to Councillor Christine Grice, Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources
Can the Cabinet Member list the amount of S106 and CIL funds spent on: a) Parks; and b) Public Realm improvements in each of the last three years.
Reply –
I thank Councillor Fletcher for his question.
A variety of improvement projects have been carried out in Parks in the last three years using Section 106 and CIL funding. These are as follows:
2017: £11,679 of Section 106 funding was spent as match funding contributions towards landscape improvement works at The Point and at Twinkle Park.
2018: £70,815 of Section 106 funding was spent on installing new children’s play equipment and new outdoor gym equipment at various parks within the borough. An additional £11,100 of CIL funding from the Greenwich Neighbourhood Growth Fund was spent on installing new fencing around the tennis courts at Fairy Hill Park.
2019: £62,649 CIL and Section106 funding (£30,000 CIL and £32,649 S106) is being spent on installing an event/education space and path improvements at The Tarn £40,000 CIL and Section106 funding (£30,000 CIL and £10,000 S106) is being spent on play improvements to the outside hub at Avery Hill Park £17,350 CIL funding is being spent on improvements to the Maryon Wilson Animal Park
ITEM NO: 10 £30.000 CIL funding has been spent towards playground improvements at Winn’s Common £11,0404 CIL funding is being spent on improvements and disabled access to the toilets at Eltham Park South £10,000 for extended play at Eltham Park South tennis courts £6,000 CIL funding has been spent on a drinking water fountain at East Greenwich Pleasaunce £34,697 CIL funding is being spent on resurfacing of tennis courts at Fairy Hill Park £28,684 Section 106 funding is being spent on development of a master plan for St Alfege Park, plus a further £148,343 Section 106 has been approved towards phase 1 improvements following development of the master plan
Plans are also being developed for future developments.
In terms of Public Realm expenditure:
2017: £580,000 S106 spent on the renovation of the Cutty Sark ship and gardens £67,000 S106 spent on General Gordon Square £840 S106 spent on signage around Felixstow Road £25,000 S106 on improvements to the Wilton Road shop fronts
2018: £3,000 S106 on works to the Thames Path missing link Phase 1 £12,000 S106 on planting new trees in Plumstead and Eltham
2019: £3,200 of neighbourhood CIL on improvements to Plumstead High Street and White Hart Road £14,900 of neighbourhood CIL on repairs to Rathmore Hall mosaic bench
ITEM NO: 10 COUNCIL
26 JUNE 2019
MEMBERS QUESTIONS
30 Question from Councillor Nigel Fletcher, to Councillor Miranda Williams, Cabinet Member for Culture, Leisure and the Third Sector
Can the Cabinet Member outline the revenue and capital budget for Parks in each of the last three years.
Reply –
I thank Councillor Fletcher for his question.
Parks & Open Spaces 2018/19
Actuals Ledger Code Section 18/19 Budget Projection Variance YTD
1130092 POS Mgmt. 145,180 144,107 144,107 (1,073) 1150100 Central Parks 3,863,000 3,918,130 3,918,130 55,130 1151100 Allotments 27,330 19,472 19,472 (7,858) 1160100 Grounds Maintenance (44,960) (241,854) (241,854) (196,894) 1160300 Animal Care 65,650 80,475 80,475 14,825 1160800 Tree Maintenance (239,630) (24,027) (24,027) 215,603 1161000 Playgrounds 92,620 78,839 78,839 (13,781) P210301 Estates GM 0 (117,697) (117,697) (117,697) F406040 Mortuary 566,560 494,055 494,055 (72,505) 1140092 Cemeteries 1,246,290 1,344,358 1,344,358 98,068
Total 5,722,040 5,695,858 5,695,858 (26,182)
ITEM NO: 10 Parks & Open Spaces 2017/18
Ledger Code Section 17/18 Budget Actuals YTD Projection Variance
1130092 POS Mgmt. 82,290 21,859 21,859 (60,431) 1150100 Central Parks 3,902,360 4,049,497 4,049,497 147,137 1151100 Allotments 23,500 19,154 19,154 (4,346) 1160100 Grounds Maintenance (16,590) (335,897) (335,897) (319,307) 1160300 Animal Care 65,000 60,814 60,814 (4,186) 1160800 Tree Maintenance (508,280) (306,186) (306,186) 202,094 1161000 Playgrounds 91,990 70,550 70,550 (21,440) P210301 Estates GM 0 (181,280) (181,280) (181,280) F406040 Mortuary 515,400 493,144 493,144 (22,256) 1140092 Cemeteries 1,246,930 1,370,211 1,370,211 123,281 Total 5,402,600 5,261,866 5,261,866 (140,734)
Capital Spend Scheme 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 Improvments to Maryon Park 1,481 0 Improvements to Hornfair Park 0 0 Charlton Skate Park 53,652 330,968 250 Hervey Rd Sports Ground 82,127 618,083 786,620 Green Flag Park sites 0 0 137,260 949,051 786,870
ITEM NO: 10 COUNCIL
26 JUNE 2019
MEMBERS QUESTIONS
31 Question from Councillor Geoffrey Brighty, to Councillor Denise Scott-McDonald, Cabinet Member for Air Quality, Sustainability and Transport
Royal Parks are currently consulting on a Movement Strategy across all eight royal parks, For Greenwich Park this could lead to the closure of road access through the park during peak hours. Can the Cabinet Member give a view on how this might impact on Council plans for Greenwich Town Centre and for the possible closure of roads such as Crooms Hill and Hyde Vale also during peak hours?
Reply –
I thank Councillor Brighty for his question.
The Royal Borough is aware of the Royal Parks Movement Strategy discussion paper and notes that further consultation is planned before the Movement Strategy is agreed in December 2019.
The discussion paper includes seven movement principles but no specific proposals for any of the Parks.
The Royal Borough is already engaging with Royal Parks in relation to the delivery of the Greenwich Liveable Neighbourhood. This engagement will continue as their Movement Strategy - and its potential impact - become more clearly defined in the coming months.
ITEM NO: 10 COUNCIL
26 JUNE 2019
MEMBERS QUESTIONS
32 Question from Councillor Geoffrey Brighty, to Councillor Sizwe James, Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Growth
Can the Cabinet Member confirm that Councillor contact details are no longer included on planning application notification letters sent to residents and how that decision was made ?
Reply –
I thank Councillor Brighty for his question.
As Councillor Brighty is aware from his correspondence with the relevant officer in December last year, this was part of general planning improvements works that have been undertaken to rationalise the information provided on the consultation letter. The reasoning behind this was to prevent confusion for residents and to sign post them to submitting their representations directly online or via the planningapps email. This minimises the myriad of avenues that they were being sent to the Service and ensures we receive them into the system in a few limited ways and don’t miss out on these valuable contributions by residents.
The changes to the letter which included clearer guidance on how and where to submit has led to a more efficient way of receiving representations and has minimised the opportunities for representations to be missed.
This decision was taken by the officers as part of the improvement works and change hasn’t negatively impacted on the quality service delivery but in fact improved it for the reasons above.
ITEM NO: 10 COUNCIL
26 JUNE 2019
MEMBERS QUESTIONS
33 Question from Councillor Geoffrey Brighty, to Councillor Denise Scott-McDonald, Cabinet Member for Air Quality, Sustainability and Transport
Can the Cabinet Member explain what arrangements there are for the maintenance of the Green Chain Walk, including signage, within the Royal Borough of Greenwich?
Reply –
I thank Councillor Brighty for his question.
Until 2016 the ‘Green Chain Joint Officers Working Party’, which comprised Council officers from each of the boroughs involved, existed to coordinate those authorities’ work on the route. This included funding for a dedicated Green Chain Officer, publicity material, renewing signage and information boards. Due to budget pressures from each of the boroughs this funding was withdrawn and the post was deleted in 2016.
Any elements of the Green Chain Walk that are on the Royal Borough’s highways, parks or open spaces are now maintained under the normal regimes for the maintenance of those types of asset.
ITEM NO: 10 COUNCIL
26 JUNE 2019
MEMBERS QUESTIONS
34 Question from Councillor Geoffrey Brighty, to Councillor Denise Scott-McDonald, Cabinet Member for Air Quality, Sustainability and Transport
Given the widespread and growing concerns about pollution can the Cabinet Member explain what powers the Council has to discourage engine idling ?
Reply –
I thank Councillor Brighty for his question.
The Royal Borough does not currently have the legal powers to enforce against engine idling but we are investigating obtaining such powers.
Some London boroughs have utilised a borough-wide consultation and Traffic Management Order, while others have used the Road Traffic (Vehicle Emissions)(Fixed Penalty)(England) Regulations 2002.
We are looking at the effectiveness of these two options before deciding how to progress, and what part enforcement plays in a wider strategy to tackle idling and vehicle emissions.
ITEM NO: 10 COUNCIL
26 JUNE 2019
MEMBERS QUESTIONS
35 Question from Councillor Geoffrey Brighty, to Councillor Christine Grice, Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources
Reports in the national media say that some local authorities are phasing out payment by coins and notes at Town Halls. Can the Cabinet Member provide an assurance that Greenwich Council will not be going cashless ?
Reply –
I thank Councillor Brighty for his question.
Greenwich is one of a diminishing number of London councils to retain a cash function at its service centre. Around £8m is received directly by the Council in cash every year, however, electronic transactions continue to increase annually. Whilst the Council works to give residents and customers a socially inclusive range of options to make payments, cash is an increasingly expensive commodity to handle. As the Council embarks upon a new Medium Term Financial Strategy, it will need to keep all options under review.
ITEM NO: 10 COUNCIL
26 JUNE 2019
MEMBERS QUESTIONS
36 Question from Councillor Geoffrey Brighty, to Councillor Chris Kirby, Cabinet Member for Housing
In answer to a Members Question from me in July last year about the state of the vacant property at 67a Shooters Hill Road the Cabinet Member for Housing said that investigations had been completed into the extent of the structural damage and went on to say that he was looking at properties like this with Officers “to understand whether to repair, let or sell”. In the year since then nothing appears to have been done to the property and following a recent enquiry I was advised “ that the best solution for returning this property back to use remains under consideration”. How much longer does the Council need to resolve this ?
Reply –
I thank Councillor Brighty for his question.
I can appreciate that the length of time taken to make a decision on this property may seem prolonged, but work has been happening in the background to develop our options.
Officers have had to consider a number of factors as part of developing some costed options for this property, and I shall be receiving a report by the end of July for my consideration.
A draft policy and assessment model that can be applied to such cases going forward is in development, using 67a Shooters Hill Rd as a working example. Both the decision regarding 67a Shooters Hill and the new model should be ready at the end of July.
ITEM NO: 10 COUNCIL
26 JUNE 2019
MEMBERS QUESTIONS
37 Question from Councillor Roger Tester, to Councillor Jackie Smith, Cabinet Member for Children’s Services and Community Safety
As the latest deadline has now passed for submission of a valid planning application, can the Cabinet Member advise Council whether enforcement action to remove the illegally set up car wash in the car park of The Royal Tavern in Court Road will begin straight away after nearly 7 months of trading without planning permission?
Reply –
I thank Councillor Tester for his question.
I understand that Planning enforcement has corresponded with you on 21st of May and that a Planning Application (reference 19/1539/F) has been submitted but currently remains invalid. The applicant has been advised as to what is required to make the application valid in order that it can be assessed properly. To date the additional information required to make the application valid has not been received.
Should the breach continue to occur and the application not be made valid and progressed by early July 2019 planning enforcement will proceed with enforcement action should it be considered expedient to do so.
ITEM NO: 10 COUNCIL
26 JUNE 2019
MEMBERS QUESTIONS
38 Question from Councillor Pat Greenwell, to Councillor Jackie Smith, Cabinet Member for Children’s Services and Community Safety
Fly tipping appears to be on the increase locally and although Street Services respond immediately to complaints illegal dumping continues to foul our streets. What measures are being taken by the Council to help combat this ?
Reply –
I thank Councillor Greenwell for her question.
There has been a reduction in the levels of fly-tipping for financial year (18/19) in comparison with 17/18, notably: -
46.65% reduction in the number of fly-tips reported by the public 9.34% reduction in the number of proactively cleared fly-tips
We have 4 taskforce teams in areas of the borough where fly-tipping is more prevalent and the frequency of our standard cleansing regime is not sufficient. These proactively remove fly-tipping from hotspots before they are reported.
As well as our continuing work to educate and engage residents and businesses, we also issued 196 FPNs in 17/18 and 122 in 18/19 for fly-tipping offences.
We will continue to use social media, our website and Greenwich Info to promote our bulky waste collection service, our Re-use and Recycling Centre at Nathan Way and to also highlight cases where we have successfully prosecuted for fly-tipping in an effort raise awareness and change behaviour.
We currently deploy CCTV in persistent fly-tipping hotspot areas and always investigate fly-tips for evidence where possible.
ITEM NO: 10 Later this year, the Council is intending to roll out an anti-fly-tipping campaign in Middle Park as a trial, using the Hertfordshire Fly Tipping Campaign Toolkit ‘Let’s SCRAP fly-tipping’.
The aim of the campaign is to educate residents on what fly-tipping is, how they can dispose of bulky items and to encourage them to report any fly-tip and to reduce fly-tipping in the area.
It also raises awareness about residents being responsible for their waste and how to use legitimate waste disposal companies to ensure that their rubbish is not fly-tipped.
ITEM NO: 10 COUNCIL
26 JUNE 2019
MEMBERS QUESTIONS
39 Question from Councillor Pat Greenwell, to Councillor Denise Scott-McDonald, Cabinet Member for Air Quality, Sustainability and Transport
What provisions are being made for residential power points to cope with the increase in the use of Electric cars?
Reply –
I thank Councillor Greenwell for her question.
The Council currently has 24 electric vehicle (EV) charging points as part of the Source London network and four rapid chargers. The Council has also recently installed 24 innovative lamppost chargers, to allow safe charging of EV’s parked on-street.
In 2019 we are embarking on an ambitious programme to significantly increase the number of EV charging points further still, to meet demand from the projected rise in EV ownership in the Borough. These plans include:
An expansion of the Source London network across the borough. A public consultation is currently open for 133 new points at 40 locations across the borough. These are planned to be installed in autumn 2019. We are in discussions with TfL for four new rapid chargers. These are planned for installation in late 2019. We plan to bid for even more lamppost charging points in the next round: which could see 100-120 on our residential streets in the autumn/winter of 2019.
ITEM NO: 10 COUNCIL
26 JUNE 2019
MEMBERS QUESTIONS
40 Question from Councillor Pat Greenwell, to Councillor David Gardner, Cabinet Member for Public Realm
Now that we have a new cinema, new bars and two new chain restaurants in Eltham High Street would it be possible to have regular deep cleansing of the surrounding pavements in what is after all a flagship area for Eltham?
Reply –
I thank Councillor Greenwell for her question.
All of our high streets and town centres benefit from a twice yearly pavement deep clean, using our high pressured jet washing equipment. Eltham is currently being jet washed and takes approximately 8 weeks to complete.
The work is carried out in the afternoon and evenings and includes the stone ‘Eltham’ sign by Eltham Parish Church and the paving in Passey Place.
This work will then be repeated in late July.
ITEM NO: 10 COUNCIL
26 JUNE 2019
MEMBERS QUESTIONS
41 Question from Councillor Matt Clare, to Councillor Denise Scott- McDonald, Cabinet Member for Air Quality, Sustainability and Transport
Thomson House, a primary school rated outstanding in Mortlake makes parents sign a pledge that their children will walk, cycle or scoot to school. With poor air quality, obesity and road safety serious issues in our borough will the Cabinet Member and officers use influence to see this implemented in Greenwich ?
Reply –
I thank Councillor Clare for his question.
33 Greenwich schools have travel plans accredited at Gold level by Transport for London’s STARS Accreditation programme. 6 have Silver and 8 have Bronze level of accreditation. The number of accredited schools is expected to increase this year, particularly the number of Gold accredited schools. We offer schools a rich programme of resources to support activities encouraging walking, cycling, scooting, and public transport as healthy and sustainable ways to travel to school.
Similar to the pledge you mention, we are encouraging schools to implement a School Travel Policy and to incorporate it within their Home and School Agreement which is signed by parents when a child joins a school.
Although it is difficult to isolate the impact of any one measure, when a School Travel Policy has been incorporated into a Home & School Agreement, schools do seem more confident, for example, about addressing parents/carers that repeatedly park irresponsibly.
We will continue to encourage schools to incorporate active, safe and sustainable travel into their Home and School Agreements.
ITEM NO: 10 COUNCIL
26 JUNE 2019
MEMBERS QUESTIONS
42 Question from Councillor Matt Clare, to Councillor Miranda Williams, Cabinet Member for Culture, Leisure and the Third Sector
97% of the UK’s wildflower meadows have disappeared since World War II. Brent Council is sowing meadows across their borough which will create a 12km long bee corridor in NW London. Will Greenwich Council encourage a similar initiative, perhaps funded by private donations to parks groups and delivered by volunteers
Reply –
I thank Councillor Clare for his question.
Parks Estates and Open Spaces have worked with Parks Friends groups to promote wildflower meadows, providing wildflower seed for the groups to sow in our Royal Borough Parks.
Poppy seeds were also distributed to Parks Friends and Community groups in 2018 for the World War 1 commemorations.
We have also had great success in planting a wildflower meadow on Glyndon Estate which has encouraged insects and wildlife.
We have also moved to a managed mowing regime in some areas of our parks and open spaces to encourage the growth of native wild flowers.
We would be glad to support the introduction of further wildflower meadows as we feel community’s would take great pride in supporting this scheme and it would be well supported.
ITEM NO: 10 COUNCIL
26 JUNE 2019
MEMBERS QUESTIONS
43 Question from Councillor Matt Clare, to Councillor Denise Scott- McDonald, Cabinet Member for Air Quality, Sustainability and Transport
Do Greenwich Highways Engineers use Strava Cycling Heat Maps to identify and plan where new or better cycling infrastructure will be of most benefit ?
Reply –
I thank Councillor Clare for his question.
The Royal Borough is currently undertaking a cycle network analysis for Royal Greenwich, to ensure investment is prioritised in the locations with greatest cycling demand.
Part of this review is based on Transport for London’s comprehensive Strategic Cycling Analysis. This uses a number of data sources to forecast future cycling demand in London. This provides a the picture of cycling demand you suggest but with a more representative and forward looking data set than an app’ like Strava could.
ITEM NO: 10 COUNCIL
26 JUNE 2019
MEMBERS QUESTIONS
44 Question from Councillor Matt Clare, to Councillor Denise Scott- McDonald, Cabinet Member for Air Quality, Sustainability and Transport
Several months ago Councillors from both parties agreed that residents, residents groups and local businesses funding the planting of new street trees or shrubs from a council approved pallet would bring much needed extra green infrastructure without cost to the taxpayer. This would be priced in such a way as to fund maintenance costs for the first few years. Officers were asked to prepare a proposal. With the autumn planting season just 3 months away when will this be ready to launch?
Reply –
I thank Councillor Clare for his question.
I do agree that residents and local groups / business should be allowed the opportunity to fund the cost of additional street tree planting, provided the new planting fully meets the Councils normal criteria. I have now agreed a proposal with officers and information about the scheme will be added to the Councils website shortly.
ITEM NO: 10 COUNCIL
26 JUNE 2019
MEMBERS QUESTIONS
45 Question from Councillor Charlie Davis, to Councillor Danny Thorpe, Leader of the Council
Can the Leader of the Council confirm the total outlay the Council has invested in Hervey Road and Kidbrooke Lane with Blackheath RFC? Can the Leader also confirm whether a date has been agreed for the commencement of the lease?
Reply –
I thank Councillor Davis for his question.
The total investment into the redevelopment of the Hervey Road site is in line with the budget of £1,435,133 set out in the approved scheme and estimate report.
The Council has invested £391,178 in the Hervey Road site, and the remaining has come from London Marathon Community Trust (£700,000) and Sport England (£280,000 from Improvement Fund and £65,000 Protecting Playing Fields Fun). The Council has also provided a loan of £50,000 in 2017/18, to be paid back over 3 years.
In respect of the Kidbrooke Lane site, the Council has provided £100,000 of funding, and a loan of £35,000 in 2014/15, being paid back over 5 years.
The lease has been agreed and dated 29th April 2019
ITEM NO: 10 COUNCIL
26 JUNE 2019
MEMBERS QUESTIONS
46 Question from Councillor Charlie Davis, to Councillor Sizwe James, Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Growth
What conversations has the Cabinet Member held with BT since their announcement that 270 of their offices nationwide will close? Can the Cabinet Member confirm whether he has had discussions with BT regarding the office in Eltham? Additionally, what impact would the closure of the BT office in Eltham have for Council plans to build housing on Orangery Lane?
Reply –
I thank Councillor Davis for his question.
BT who have confirmed that both sites in Eltham are retained as they are “operational exchanges” meaning that they are integral to BT’s network serving Customers with voice, broadband and business services.
In respect of the Orangery site, owned by the Council, approval has been secured for the site to be used for the delivery of new Council homes and the due diligence to support the successful delivery of this site is well underway.
ITEM NO: 10 COUNCIL
26 JUNE 2019
MEMBERS QUESTIONS
47 Question from Councillor Charlie Davis, to Councillor Danny Thorpe, Leader of the Council
Can the Leader confirm the outcome of talks between the Council and the New Wine Church regarding a future relationship?
Reply –
I thank Councillor Davis for his question.
I’m not sure what talks Councillor Davis is referring to.
On 17 October last year, I held a breakfast with Faith Leaders from across the borough, which was attended by representatives of the New Wine Church. The aim of that event was to bring the faith community together, to discuss the challenges faced in building and maintaining cohesive communities in the borough, and how they can be addressed together.
I’m delighted that the New Wine Church, alongside other faith groups from across the borough, signed our community partnership pledge.
ITEM NO: 10 COUNCIL
26 JUNE 2019
MEMBERS QUESTIONS
48 Question from Councillor Charlie Davis, to Councillor Denise Scott-McDonald, Cabinet Member for Air Quality, Sustainability and Transport
Can the Cabinet Member confirm who attended the May Crossrail Stakeholder High Level Forum with her, and which local issues she raised with Crossrail?
Reply –
I thank Councillor Davis for his question.
I attended the Crossrail Stakeholder High Level Forum on 15th May with the support of advanced briefing from officers. A summary of this briefing has been provided to you by the Transportation department..
While I and representatives from most other affected boroughs highlighted the unacceptable impact of the delay in the opening of the Elizabeth line, the Forum was primarily focussed on stakeholder, complaint and engagement issues.
As well as a number of wider discussions on issues of relevance to Royal Greenwich, I raised local issues, including:
Abbey Grove: Crossrail acknowledged this had been a failure and committed to doing things differently in the future. They are in talks with Thames Water and committed to provide more information as their understanding developed. Bostall Manorway/Church Manorway: Crossrail admitted that they had been slow with this. They are going to put cladding (/screening) in place. Again, they did commit to doing things differently in future. Finally I can inform you that Nick Raynsford, Deputy Chair of Crossrail, has agreed to meet councillors on site at Abbey Wood to understand the local concerns.
ITEM NO: 10 COUNCIL
26 JUNE 2019
MEMBERS QUESTIONS
49 Question from Councillor Charlie Davis, to Councillor Denise Scott-McDonald, Cabinet Member for Air Quality, Sustainability and Transport
Can the Cabinet Member confirm when public realm work will be completed on Wilton Road in Abbey Wood?
Reply –
I thank Councillor Davis for his question.
The public realm improvements around the new Abbey Wood station are being delivered entirely through external funding (secured as a result of Crossrail) and in partnership with the London Borough of Bexley. However, as the majority of the work actually falls within the London Borough of Bexley’s side of the boundary that Council is leading on the delivery and management of the improvements. I am advised that the work around the northern end of Wilton Road and Gayton Road are now substantially complete.
However, the street furniture is yet to be installed. This will be completed in the coming weeks. Additionally, the planting and landscaping (including establishing new sites for trees) will be completed in the autumn / winter because this is the best time to undertake these works.
ITEM NO: 10 COUNCIL
26 JUNE 2019
MEMBERS QUESTIONS
50 Question from Councillor Charlie Davis, to Councillor David Gardner, Cabinet Member for Public Realm
Can the Cabinet Member confirm how many times a year Eltham High Street is de-weeded? Is the Cabinet Member able to supply a breakdown of the schedule for the maintenance of each High Street across the Royal Borough?
Reply –
I thank Councillor Davis for his question.
All of the public highway is treated for weeds three times a year between April and October. This includes all of our high streets. We are currently halfway through our second spray, with work scheduled for completion by the end of June (weather permitting). Once sprayed, weeds will take between 10-14 days to die off and turn brown. Our street cleansing staff will then remove them as part of their normal cleansing duties. The final borough wide spray is due to start late August.
ITEM NO: 10 COUNCIL
26 JUNE 2019
MEMBERS QUESTIONS
51 Question from Councillor Charlie Davis, to Councillor Miranda Williams, Cabinet Member for Culture, Leisure and the Third Sector
Following the sign-off of Greenwich Get Active at May’s Cabinet meeting, can the Cabinet member confirm whether the Council put together a bid for Sports England’s Workforce Diversity Great Ideas Fund to help engage the priority groups set out in the report?
Reply –
I thank Councillor Davis for his question.
As part of the Physical activity and Sport Strategy and Action Plan - Greenwich Get Active – we heard that there are 133,000 active adults but we also have 55,000 inactive adults in Greenwich
There is a need to target specific groups, namely women and BAME groups and find ways to support individuals into sport and physical activity, either as participants or as coaches or volunteers.
We are considering submitting an ‘expression of interest’ into the Workforce Diversity Fund, which closes on the 3rd July
However, we are joining forces, in September with London Sport to:
Undertake a workforce review and develop a plan for the sport and physical activity workforce at a Borough wide level. Identify the workforce priorities across Royal Greenwich. Develop solutions to help in the creation of more diverse workforce and subsequently encouraging Greenwich residents to stay and become active.
Undertaking this piece of research and insight will put us in a stronger position for future workforce development grants.
ITEM NO: 10 COUNCIL
26 JUNE 2019
MEMBERS QUESTIONS
52 Question from Councillor Spencer Drury, to Councillor Denise Hyland, Cabinet Member for Economy, Skills and Apprenticeships
With the aim of encouraging small business growth, The Greenwich Enterprise Board (GEB) administers a number of properties across the Royal Borough, including three sites in Eltham. Could the Cabinet Member outline the relationship between the Council and GEB, including how the two organisations work together to support small business growth across the Royal Borough?
Reply –
I thank Councillor Drury for his question.
The Greenwich Enterprise Board (GEB) was established in 1982. It is a not for profit organisation set up to support small businesses in the borough through the development and management of good quality affordable workspace on flexible terms. It also had responsibility for delivering business support prior to the establishment of its associate company, South East Enterprise (SEE), in 2006. SEE, which is now independent for GEB, focuses on the development and delivery of business support programmes, while GEB focuses on the development and management of commercial properties and workspace.
GEB plays a critical role in delivering a function that is not met by the majority of commercial developers. The provision of good quality affordable workspace is a critical requirement for the growth and retention of businesses in the borough. This is a key issue in view of high demand for workspace and limited supply. GEB manages nine sites across the borough, housing nearly 100 small business tenants. GEB has developed three sites in Eltham - Hillview Studios; Mulberry Place studios and the Orangery Studios, which have been developed without public funding. GEB are currently seeking further sites in Eltham. GEB works with the council in the following ways : developing and providing affordable workspace promotion of its available premises on the council’s free online premises search facility
ITEM NO: 10 the provision of intelligence on commercial property demand and supply representation of the council on the boards of GEB and SEE by the Cabinet Member for Economy, Skills and Apprenticeships.
ITEM NO: 10 COUNCIL
26 JUNE 2019
MEMBERS QUESTIONS
53 Question from Councillor Spencer Drury, to Councillor Christine Grice, Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources
I note that the Labour Party has committed to a programme of renationalisation of a range of industries, including the water industry, should it win power in the near future. I note that the Council’s pension fund contained £1.4m of shares in water companies at the end of April 2019. What work has the Cabinet Member done to establish the potential losses to the Council’s pension fund as a result of a programme of nationalisation at less than market value by any potential Labour Government? Does the Cabinet Member consider that any mass programme of nationalisation, as proposed by the current Labour leadership, could have a serious, detrimental effect of the Council’s Pension Fund?
Reply –
I thank Councillor Drury for his question.
Decisions relating to the councils pension fund are not an executive matter - they fall under the remit of the Pension Fund Investment and Administration Panel. The Fund investments are largely managed by external investment managers and their role will be to make any necessary adjustments required to achieve the agreed benchmark return.
As with any potential policy or economic news, uncertainty can have an effect upon the investment return of the Pension Fund.
The impact of any potential renationalisation of water companies would largely depend on the terms on which such a deal was completed. However, the Pension Fund had approximately £1.4m invested in water companies, which accounts for 0.1% of the overall fund value and therefore, any impact would be largely negligible to the pension fund return, which increased in value by £57m to £1.332bn during the financial year ending 2018/19.
ITEM NO: 10 COUNCIL
26 JUNE 2019
MEMBERS QUESTIONS
54 Question from Councillor Spencer Drury, to Councillor Sizwe James, Cabinet Member for Regeneration and Growth
I note that it is only a little more than a year since the Council decided to spend £1m of taxpayers money on purchasing land from (what was then) Corelli College. More recently, the Council has decided to place the land purchased either side of the entrance to Halley Academy (previously Corelli College) up for sale. At the time, the then Leader of the Council stated that the purpose of purchasing these sites could be “to use that land and that property for any number of things, it could be alternative schooling, it could be an auditory unit, it could be some kind of social work project”. What options other than selling this land have been considered and what money is expected to be raised by the Council from its sale?
Reply –
I thank Councillor Drury for his question.
This land was identified on the disposal list that was approved by Council in February of this year. At present exploratory work is underway to consider possibilities for the land and at this stage it is too early to provide information regarding options.
ITEM NO: 10 COUNCIL
26 JUNE 2019
MEMBERS QUESTIONS
55 Question from Councillor Spencer Drury, to Councillor David Gardner, Cabinet Member for Public Realm
Could the Cabinet Member outline how widely glyphosate herbicide is used around the Royal Borough of Greenwich?
Reply –
I thank Councillor Drury for his question.
Currently the Council uses weed killing products containing Glyphosate to treat weeds on the public highway, estates and parks.
This is to reduce trip hazards by preventing weed growth on pathways, sports courts and other hard surfaces Comply with legal duties to control invasive weed species such as Japanese Knotweed. Provide high quality turf sporting facilities Manage weed control cost effectively and efficiently
Tree bases do not form part of this programme and should not be sprayed.
Glyphosate is the active ingredient in many herbicides (weed killers) and is widely used around the world. Since it was approved for use, Glyphosate has been subject to extensive testing and regulatory assessment in the EU and elsewhere and is the world’s most used weed killer.
The EU has a rigorous approvals processes for pesticides. The main aim of the processes is to protect the health of people, animals and plants and to safeguard the environment. The relevant EU and UK regulations are that Glyphosate is safe to use.
In 2017, The European Chemical Agency (ECHA) Committee for Risk Assessment reviewed the available scientific evidence and reached the conclusion that “glyphosate is not a carcinogen and does not cause genetic or reproductive effects” when used in compliance with manufacturer instructions. ITEM NO: 10 The Council continually reviews the use of the pesticides and has trialled some pesticide free alternatives to weed removal in the past including mechanical equipment and gas burners. None of these trials so far have been as efficient or cost effective and we have continued to use Glyphosate as part of an integrated approach in conjunction with mulching and manual weed control for the control of weeds within parks.
A small number of Authorities have stopped using Glyphosate based weed killers for less effective and more expensive methods. One method being used by some other Authorities is the application of hot foam to kill weeds and its planned that this will be trialled in RBG parks. We will continue to monitor findings from this trial and other councils.
The vast majority of local authorities have continued to use Glyphosate as they have not found a suitable replacement that is as cost effective and gives good quality weed control. Without other efficient and cost effective replacement products on the market, weed removal would have to be undertaken via mechanical means. This would dramatically increase the cost and would also increase CO2 emissions, usage of petrol and potentially increase risks to staff from hand arm vibration and noise exposure through use of mechanical alternatives.
ITEM NO: 10 COUNCIL
26 JUNE 2019
MEMBERS QUESTIONS
56 Question from Councillor Spencer Drury, to Councillor Christine Grice, Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources
I note that at the end of May the Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources issued a statement on the Council’s Financial Reserves as a result of a BBC news report stating that Royal Borough of Greenwich was depleting its reserves. What has been the actual decrease in the earmarked and unallocated reserves for the Royal Borough of Greenwich from 2015- 18? The Cabinet Member stated that the Council has a £125m funding shortfall - what measures is she taking to address this problem?
Reply –
I thank Councillor Drury for his question.
I have set out in the response to questions above, some of the steps taken to address the funding shortfall that has arisen since the start of the government’s austerity programme in 2010.
Turning to reserves, there was a £69m movement during the period in question from £224m to £155m.
ITEM NO: 10 COUNCIL
26 JUNE 2019
MEMBERS QUESTIONS
57 Question from Councillor Spencer Drury, to Councillor Jackie Smith, Cabinet Member for Children’s Services and Community Safety
I note that in the recent decision “Implementation of Policy Relating to Enforcement of Traffic Contraventions by CCTV” the Leader of the Council decided to approach London Councils for permission to utilise powers which were first outlined in the Parking Strategy of December 2017.
Can the Cabinet Member inform Council why it has taken so long to request these powers and when she expects to have completed the processes required to utilise them?
Reply –
I thank Councillor Drury for his question.
I am pleased to inform you that London Councils Transport and Environment Committee approved our application to use CCTV to enforce bus lane, school ‘keep clear’ markings and moving traffic contraventions at their meeting on 13th June. A resolution to adopt these powers will be coming to next month’s Council meeting.
There has been some delay but a lot of work has been necessary to submit a robust application. This has included the recruitment of a Parking Projects Manager, the appointment of a specialist consultant and the creation of an inventory of the relevant restrictions and their associated Traffic Management Orders throughout the Royal Borough.
Additionally preparation for CCTV enforcement has been progressed in parallel, involving specification, procurement and planning for recruitment, appropriate accommodation, etc. As a result it is anticipated that enforcement will commence in December this year.
ITEM NO: 10 COUNCIL
26 JUNE 2019
MEMBERS QUESTIONS
58 Question from Councillor Spencer Drury, to Councillor Denise Scott-McDonald, Cabinet Member for Air Quality, Sustainability and Transport
In October the Cabinet Member for Transport assured me that although the programme for extending a CPZ to Eltham Park Gardens had been delayed, progress would be made. More than six months later, residents are still waiting for news about the creation of a CPZ for Eltham Park Gardens and the removal of the parking charges on western Glenlea Road at the weekends. Can the Cabinet Member explain what has caused this delay and suggest when residents can finally expect the CPZ process to be completed?
Reply –
I thank Councillor Drury for his question.
As reported in October the consultation documents for this scheme were to be delivered to residents in November and this was undertaken. The responses to that consultation have been analysed and the current proposal, reflecting the majority of responses to that consultation, will be shared with Councillors in the coming weeks prior to being circulated to residents and businesses, which it is anticipated will be completed by the end of July. This is part of the borough-wide review of all the Council’s CPZs for which there is limited funding but the implementation of approved measures for this scheme will be carried out as a priority, following the statutory process for advertising and making the associated Traffic Management Orders (TMOs).
With regard to changes to Glen Lea Road the associated TMO has been advertised and the statutory objection period is due to expire on 3 July 2019. Presuming there are no objections received, which we are legally obliged to give due consideration to, the changes will be implemented as quickly as possible after this date.
ITEM NO: 10