Item 2 – Minutes of meeting held on 14 October 2014
London Councils
Minutes of the London Councils Leaders’ Committee held on 14 October 2014 Mayor Jules Pipe chaired the meeting
Present: BARKING AND DAGENHAM Cllr Darren Rodwell BARNET Cllr Richard Cornelius BEXLEY Cllr Teresa O’Neill BRENT Cllr M. A. Butt BROMLEY Cllr Stephen Carr CAMDEN Cllr Sarah Hayward CROYDON Cllr Tony Newman EALING Cllr Julian Bell ENFIELD Cllr Doug Taylor GREENWICH Cllr Denise Hyland HACKNEY Mayor Jules Pipe HAMMERSMITH & FULHAM Cllr Stephen Cowan HARINGEY Cllr Claire Kober HARROW Cllr David Perry HAVERING Cllr Roger Ramsey HILLINGDON Cllr Philip Corthone HOUNSLOW Cllr Stephen Curran ISLINGTON Cllr Richard Watts KENSINGTON & CHELSEA Cllr Nicholas Paget-Brown KINGSTON Cllr Kevin Davis LAMBETH Cllr Paul McGlone LEWISHAM Mayor Sir Steve Bullock MERTON Cllr Stephen Alambritis NEWHAM Mayor Sir Robin Wales/Cllr Ken Clark* REDBRIDGE Cllr Jas Athwal RICHMOND UPON THAMES Cllr Lord True SOUTHWARK Cllr Fiona Colley SUTTON Cllr Ruth Dombey TOWER HAMLETS Mayor Lutfur Rahman WALTHAM FOREST Cllr Clyde Loakes WANDSWORTH Cllr Ravi Govindia WESTMINSTER Cllr Philippa Roe CITY OF LONDON Mrs Catherine McGuiness LFEPA - * Cllr Clark substituted for Mayor Wales when he left after item 4.
Apologies:
HILLINGDON Cllr Ray Puddifoot MBE LAMBETH Cllr Lib Peck NEWHAM Mayor Sir Robin Wales** SOUTHWARK Cllr Peter John CITY OF LONDON Mr Mark Boleat WALTHAM FOREST Cllr Chris Robbins CITY OF LONDON Mr Mark Boleat CAPITAL AMBITION Mr Edward Lord JP OBE CC ** For early departure
Item 2 – Minutes of meeting held on 14 October 2014
Ex officio (under the provisions of Standing Order 2.6)
EQUALITIES Cllr Marie Pye
London Councils officers were in attendance
1. Declarations of interest
Mayor Jules Pipe pointed out that legal advice indicated that neither he nor any other remunerated London Councils members were obliged to declare an interest under item 8 Remuneration of Members, he would, nonetheless, and on behalf of all affected members declare an interest on the grounds of openness and transparency. No other interests were declared.
2. Minutes of Leaders’ Committee AGM and ordinary meeting held on the 15 July 2014
Leaders’ Committee agreed the minutes of Leaders’ Committee AGM and ordinary meeting held on the 15 July 2014.
3. London Infrastructure Investment Plan 2050 – London Councils Consultation Response
Cllr Claire Kober (Labour, Infrastructure and Regeneration, Haringey) introduced the item saying:
• The Mayor had produced a draft London Infrastructure Investment Plan 2050 for consultation with a deadline of 31 October • The draft Plan was an ambitious document and attempted to pull together different infrastructure needs, the costs that would be involved in realising these and aimed to bring together relevant parties to progress the aims within the London Infrastructure Delivery Board • London Councils had put together a consultation response, which was attached as an appendix and which officers were asking us to discuss and sign off • In the consultation response we highlighted a number of issues, grouped within the broad areas of Governance, Finance and specific Infrastructure requirements • One of the key omissions of the draft report was that of social infrastructure. Although housing and schools were included within the overall costs, there was no detailed analysis of the requirements. This was a weakness because housing, schools and Item 2 – Minutes of meeting held on 14 October 2014
health play a critical role in supporting London’s continued growth and also because there were strong inter-relationships between, for example, housing and transport • Within governance arrangements, we highlighted that it was essential to understand how the London Infrastructure Delivery Board would work with existing structures and any new boards that would be created. A Board designed to include all stakeholders was likely to be too large for detailed decision making. How would the London Infrastructure Delivery Board work with the LEP, Homes for London Board, etc? How would it take into consideration any sub-regional partnerships? • We support fiscal devolution, but although this would give us some degree of certainty of available funds, it would not be enough to bridge the estimated funding gap of £1.3 trillion. We therefore needed to look at other solutions and we suggested looking at capturing land values and making the most of our assets • With regards to the specific infrastructure requirements, we thought that much more emphasis should be put on demand management. For example, rather than building a tolled, orbital road tunnel, we suggested to look at electronic road pricing to discourage travel at certain times of day in certain areas of London. Walking and cycling should be emphasised, as well as the improvement of the rail infrastructure. Similarly with regards to water, energy and waste infrastructure, emphasis should be on reducing demand, such as water saving measures, improvements to existing infrastructure (fixing leaks), energy efficiency measures and waste reduction at source • We would not support any proposal to bring planning applications for communications infrastructure within the Mayor’s responsibility and suggested looking at the CCTV network for wider data transmission • We looked forward to working in partnership with the Mayor and other stakeholders to develop a fully integrated infrastructure investment proposal for London.
Cllr Philippa Roe (Conservative, Devolution and Public Service Reform, Westminster) pointed out that not enough prominence was attached to boroughs’ own infrastructure plans and that the issue of CCTV, and the cost of maintenance need stronger emphasis. She went on to say that if the Mayor’s proposal of a Thames estuary airport did not come to fruition and airport expansion needed to be taken up elsewhere in London infrastructure development needed to follow it.
Cllr Nicholas Paget-Brown (Conservative, Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea) encouraged reference in the response to Crossrail2 and Thames Barrier renewal. Item 2 – Minutes of meeting held on 14 October 2014
Cllr Stephen Carr (Conservative, Bromley) wanted the London Councils’ response to highlight the fact that the draft Plan did not reflect the Mayor’s 2012 manifesto commitment around DLR extension to Bromley North but, instead, talked about an extension of the Bakerloo Line which, Councillor Carr said, had not been part of the that manifesto. Councillor Kober did not feel it was possible in the response to reflect on the degree to which Mayoral manifesto commitments had been kept, but acknowledged that Councillor Carr’s concerns should be recorded in the minutes.
Cllr Tony Newman (Labour, Croydon) also called for better reflection of promises made by the current Mayor about trams and key strategic infrastructure requirements given greater prominence.
Cllr Fiona Coley (Labour, Southwark) and Mayor Sir Steve Bullock (Labour, Housing, Lewisham) supported references to the Bakerloo line extension.
Cllr Stephen Cowan (Labour, Hammersmith and Fulham) wanted the response to point to the importance of the ‘flyunder’ (replacement of the Hammersmith flyover by a tunnel) proposal as a means of reclaiming land for housing. This was important for Hounslow and Hammersmith & Fulham.
Mayor Sir Robin Wales referred to paragraph 17(f) on east London river crossings and asked for it to be referred back to officers to be re-written as many east London boroughs felt that the failure by the Mayor of London to provide a fixed crossing had cost thousands of jobs. He referred to the Galleons Bridge proposal that had now been lost while two other bridges were being consulted on.
Cllr Ravi Govindia (Conservative, Wandsworth) called for river connectivity in general to be emphasised and Cllr Lord True (Conservative Richmond) agreed as did Cllr Denise Hyland (Labour, Greenwich) who also emphasised the need to combine river crossings with public transport improvements.
Cllr Teresa O’Neill (Conservative, Bexley) argued that however the section on river crossings was rewritten, she maintained that her borough’s approach had always been dictated by the best interests of Bexley.
Item 2 – Minutes of meeting held on 14 October 2014
Cllr Claire Kober responded by saying that she was clear on Bexley’s position on river- crossings and suggested that a new wording was put forward by officers to all boroughs that had an interest in river crossings to comment on.
Leaders’ Committee agreed the consultation response subject to the changes put forward by members of Leaders’ Committee and, in particular, to section 17(f) on river crossings being re-written and the affected boroughs consulted on the new text.
4. Housing: Recent Activity
Mayor Sir Steve Bullock introduced the report saying it was a short report that represented a considerable amount of activity on an area that has been becoming ever-more important. He said:
• It would be helpful to get an idea from borough leaders on their strength of feeling on the Mayor’s consultation on top-slicing 5-10% of allocations for new developments in the 2015-18 programme. So far the response from boroughs had been mainly negative but it had come from officers rather than leaders and further clarification would be useful • Similarly, it would also be helpful to get a steer from Leaders on the Right to Move consultation, recently issued by the Government.
Cllr Richard Watts (Labour, Islington) expressed a strongly held view that if boroughs surrendered any control over allocations from new developments it would undermine their ability to counter objectors’ arguments by pointing to the potential benefits to local residents of being allocated a home in the new development.
Cllr Ravi Govindia pointed out that housing need was not confined to those living in social housing and that he was not convinced by the Right to Move proposals. It was not clear who would bear the costs? He went on to refer to the question of out-of-borough placements described in paragraph 13 of the report and urged transparency in boroughs sharing of information. Cllr Stephen Carr (Conservative, Bromley) agreed with the scepticism expressed by both Mayor Bullock and Cllr Govindia on the Right to Move and Cllr Philip Corthone (Conservative, Hillingdon) was uncertain whether there was any provision for equitability between authorities as part of it?
Item 2 – Minutes of meeting held on 14 October 2014
Cllr Nicholas Paget-Brown did not think that the Right to Move could be practicable for a small inner-London borough like his and Cllr Roger Ramsey (Conservative, Havering) referred to paragraphs 10-13 that dealt with out-of-borough placements and the problems faced by outer London boroughs, like his, where rents were low and were, therefore, attractive to other boroughs to use to fulfil statutory housing requirements. This would also lead to increasing numbers of homeless families being placed outside of London. He urged collaboration between boroughs.
Cllr Darren Rodwell (Labour, Barking and Dagenham) supported the call for cross-London collaboration and agreement and pointed to the pressures placed on services – the NHS, school places, refuse collection, by an influx of families from other boroughs.
Cllr Stephen Curran (Labour, Hounslow) pointed out that his borough was now placing families in Slough, outside London and expressed his borough’s absolute opposition to the Right to Move.
Cllr Stephen Cowan (Labour, Hammersmith and Fulham) argued for boroughs to have a right to build homes to be lived in by local residents. In his borough 80% of residential units were built by investors who would not live in them.
Cllr Doug Taylor (Labour, Enfield) expressed his opposition to the Government’s proposals set out in a consultation to make permanent permitted development rights to allow conversions of offices and light industrial premises to residential premises without the need for full planning permission. It was important to note that it was light industrial use as well as offices that were vulnerable under this change. The Chair gauged that there was widespread support for Cllr Taylor’s views amongst Leaders.
Mayor Bullock concluded by saying:
• A final decision on the Mayor’s top-slice proposal was expected in the New Year • All boroughs were experiencing pressure on temporary accommodation, that were growing rather than shrinking and a way to even out disparities between boroughs needed to be found • The problem with supply was not going away any time soon • A number of reports were due to be published shortly, the Lyons report imminently and the Elphicke/House Review, the result of a Government commission on the role Item 2 – Minutes of meeting held on 14 October 2014
of local authorities in Housing supply.
Leaders’ Committee agreed to note and endorse London Councils’ current housing policy and lobbying activity.
Mayor Sir Robin Wales (Labour, Newham) left the meeting and was replaced by Cllr Ken Clark (Labour, Newham).
5. Health & Care
Cllr Teresa O’Neill introduced the item saying:
• We were all going through tough budget rounds at the moment – and was sure pressures on social care would be featuring in all members’ considerations • We were also all aware – not least because of discussions at Health & Wellbeing Boards and around the sign-off of Better Care Fund plans – of growing challenges in the NHS. They, too, were starting to face real budget pressures • It was clear that the balance of spending in the NHS was wrong – too much went into the expensive acute and emergency end, and too little into keeping people as well and independent as possible. Shifting this balance was important, to improve primary care and mental health services that were vital to our citizens, and to help reduce some of the financial pressures we faced on social care • But making such a change was a huge challenge. We had a vested interest in how this was done and how successful it was. So, the question at the heart of this paper was how far were we prepared to go to be active partners in shaping and leading the changes needed across health and care? And what changes in behaviour and approach did we need from the NHS to make this work? • The paper flagged three key agendas in which this question would come into sharp relief in the coming months: the conclusion of the London Health Commission’s work, NHS England’s exploration of ways to devolve or at least share their primary care commissioning responsibilities, and delivering real integration and personalisation of health and care services • To inform our approach to each of these, alongside the overall question of Leaders views on the role local authorities should be seeking to create for themselves in health and care, Leaders’ Committee was invited to consider:
Item 2 – Minutes of meeting held on 14 October 2014
o The strength and suitability of existing local arrangements to be main drivers for change in the system. We wanted health and care transformation to be shaped to fit the needs and circumstances of our communities, so effective Health and Wellbeing Boards and other local arrangements, like joint commissioning, would be vital.
o The levels of interest in shaping roles for boroughs at sub-regional levels. Some health issues had to be considered or co-ordinated across a whole ‘local health economy’ – based on an acute hospital footprint. CCGs had already organised themselves into six Strategic Planning Groups in London – so did we want to be partners in the leadership and planning at this level too?
Cllr Richard Watts warned against two possible mistakes:
• Disengagement and allowing changes that would be happening anyway to come about without the involvement of the boroughs and • Being drawn into top-down centrally-driven reorganisations without securing real influence.
He went on to say, boroughs needed to enter into a sensible dialogue with the NHS in which they recognise we are willing to be partners for change, but only if they are given a real chance to shape this change for our local communities..
Cllr Ravi Govindia flagged concerns around the budgets for 0-5 years public health commissioning, which were due to transfer to boroughs in October 2015. He also reminded the Committee about the experiences of the Better Care Fund policy changes that had prioritised acute hospital outcomes over other health and care services. He expressed reservations about the CCG multi-borough groups and their lacking of co-terminosity with the other multi-area groupings within which boroughs work.
Cllr Julian Bell (Labour, Transport and Environment, Ealing) stressed the importance of boroughs engaging with health. The Strategic Planning Groups were becoming well established and yet there were no local politicians at these tables. It was also important for boroughs to have a place at the table on primary care – because this service was important to residents, key to integration and boroughs track record in driving out savings would be important to the NHS. Borough engagement was key to provide local democratic accountability for changes in health services – through Health & Wellbeing Boards locally, Item 2 – Minutes of meeting held on 14 October 2014
and at the sub-regional and pan-London levels. Given the ‘graph of doom’ boroughs are facing on adult social care, it is vital that they engage vigorously with health to try to find whole system solutions.
Cllr Richard Cornelius (Conservative, Barnet) agreed that we have to integrate health and care, and the borough voice has to be heard in this – not least because they would get the blame when things went wrong.
Cllr Ruth Dombey (Liberal Democrat, Sutton) expressed concerns about Strategic Planning Groups. They already exist and will be further strengthened as a part of the health system, being able to take on decision-making powers because of recent statutory changes. She was frustrated that she was not being allowed to have a place on the Board of her Strategic Planning Group – which was a step back from the previous arrangements with Primary Care Trust clusters. If boroughs did not find ways of working together to engage with Strategic Planning Groups, they would not be able to influence important decisions within the NHS.
Cllr Roger Ramsay agreed that local authorities could not afford to be by-standers in health. He highlighted the financial challenges in adult social care, particularly the implications of Care Act changes for boroughs like his with high numbers of care homes who would be facing unfunded responsibilities for increasing numbers of care home residents who had originally lived elsewhere.
Cllr Kevin Davis (Conservative, Kingston) recalled arguments about co-terminosity between Primary Care Trusts (PCTs) and borough boundaries and argued that a power shift was underway and he was very anxious about relationships between the boroughs and the health service given the differences of approach.
Leaders Committee concluded that it was important for local authorities to be able to play real and influential roles in shaping and leading health and care change in London, at the local, sub-regional and pan-London levels.
6. Sustainable Communities Act – Fixed Odds Betting Terminals
Cllr Claire Kober introduced the item saying the Mayor of Newham, Sir Robin Wales, had written to request the formal support of Leaders’ Committee for a proposal to submit an application under the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 to reduce the maximum stake on Category B2 Fixed Odd Betting Terminals from £100 to £2 in on-street betting premises. Item 2 – Minutes of meeting held on 14 October 2014
Cllr Clyde Loakes (Labour, Waltham Forest) asked how many boroughs had responded to the request and Cllr Ken Clark (Labour, Newham) said that there had been widespread support on a cross party basis from across the country. Most boroughs in London suffered from the plethora of betting shops in their high streets.
Leaders’ Committee agreed to the request from the Mayor of Newham to formally endorse plans to submit an application under the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 to reduce the stakes on Fixed Odds Betting Terminals (Category B2) from £100 to £2 in on-street betting premises.
7. Annual Audit Report 2013/14
The Chair introduced the report saying;
• Cllr Roger Ramsey, Chair of the Audit Committee, would answer any specific points members wished to raise. The report had been presented by PWC to the Audit Committee on 26 September. • The Audit Report contained details of the objection to the accounts in respect of the basis of the delegation to the Transport and Environment Committee for the provision of the Parking on Private Land Appeals Service and the steps being taken to regularise the position going forward in the view of the Auditor. • The report also included an internal control recommendation in relation to end of year payroll reconciliation and the management response was set out on page 12 of the Audit Report.
Leaders’ Committee agreed to note the contents of the Annual Audit Report attached as an appendix to the report.
8. Remuneration of London Councils’ Members
The Chief Executive introduced the report saying it was the second of the two reports commissioned on a four-yearly basis by London Councils from the Independent Panel on the Remuneration of Councillors, the first being in relation to remuneration of members in boroughs and this, the second, on remuneration of members for their activity for London Councils.
Item 2 – Minutes of meeting held on 14 October 2014
The Chair pointed out that one of the panel’s recommendations was for members’ remuneration for activity for London Councils to be uprated in line with the officers annual pay award and although London Councils members had accepted this recommendation in principle, they had, in recent years - having been consulted and on a personal basis - decided not to accept the cash increase and this was the course of action he proposed for this year.
Cllr Darren Rodwell pointed out that he would abstain on this report because of a particular issue that his borough, Barking and Dagenham, had with one of the categories of remunerated responsibility.
Leaders’ Committee agreed, with the exception of the abstention of Barking and Dagenham, to accept the recommendations in the report from the Independent Panel on the Remuneration of Councillors on Remuneration of London Councils members attached as an appendix to the report, save that remunerated London Councils members be advised of the consensus reached between the groups on not taking he recommended increase in line with the annual officers pay award set out in paragraph 5 of the panel’s report and asked to indicate whether they were content to follow that course in respect of their personal position.
9. Minutes and Summaries
Leaders’ Committee agreed to note the minutes and summaries
• Audit Committee – 15 July 2014 • Grants Committee- 16 July 2014 (AGM) • Transport and Environment Committee – 17 July 2014 (AGM) • Capital Ambition Board – 17 July 2014 (AGM) • GLEF – 17 July 2014 (AGM) • TEC Executive Sub Committee – 11 September 2014
Action Points
Item Action Progress
3. London Infrastructure Investment Plan PAPA/ Response submitted 2050 – London Councils Consultation Strategic Response Policy
• The consultation response to be re- written to include the changes put Item 2 – Minutes of meeting held on 14 October 2014
forward by members of Leaders’ Committee and, in particular, section 17(f) on river crossings to be re-written and the affected boroughs consulted on the new text.
4. Housing: Recent Activity PAPA/ Top-slice: leaders’ Housing concerns were raised at • London Councils opposed: Homes for London board meeting, and we agreed the Mayor’s proposal to top-slice 5- th o a meeting on 9 10% of allocations for new December for borough developments in the 2015-18 housing leads and GLA programme to take this forward.
the Government’s proposed Right o Responded to Right to to Move Move consultation
o the Government’s proposals to make permanent permitted Will continue to raise development rights to allow concerns on permitted conversions of offices to residential development rights. premises without the need for full planning permission.
6. Sustainable Communities Act – Fixed PAPA/ Odds Betting Terminals Strategic Letter Policy Sent • London Councils to formally endorse Confirming Endorsement plans to submit an application under the Sustainable Communities Act 2007 to reduce the stakes on Fixed Odds Betting Terminals (Category B2) from £100 to £2 in on-street betting premises.
8. Remuneration of London Councils’ CG Letters sent Members • Remunerated London Councils members be advised of the consensus reached between the groups on not taking he recommended increase in line with the annual officers pay award set out in paragraph 5 of the panel’s report and asked to indicate whether they were content to follow that course in respect of their personal position.