Lewisham Council Members

Public Document Pack Lewisham Council Members

Members of the committee, listed below, are summoned to attend the meeting to be held on Wednesday, 28 November 2012.

Barry Quirk, Chief Executive November 20 2012

Mayor Sir Steve Bullock

Councillor Jackie Addison

Councillor Obajimi Adefiranye

Councillor Anne Affiku

Councillor Christine Allison

Councillor Abdeslam Amrani

Councillor Pauline Beck

Councillor Paul Bell

Councillor Chris Best

Councillor Kevin Bonavia

Councillor John Bowen

Councillor David Britton

Councillor Duwayne Brooks

Councillor Suzannah Clarke

Councillor Jenni Clutten

Councillor Liam Curran

Councillor Janet Daby

Councillor Vincent Davis Councillor Amanda De Ryk

Councillor Damien Egan

Councillor Alexander Feakes

Councillor Peggy Fitzsimmons

Councillor Julia Fletcher

Councillor Joseph Folorunso

Councillor Patsy Foreman

Councillor Vicky Foxcroft

Councillor Helen Gibson

Councillor Sven Griesenbeck

Councillor Alan Hall

Councillor Carl Handley

Councillor Michael Harris

Councillor Ami Ibitson

Councillor Mark Ingleby

Councillor Stella Jeffrey

Councillor Darren Johnson

Councillor Helen Klier

Councillor Madeliene Long

Councillor Chris Maines

Councillor Jim Mallory

Councillor Paul Maslin

Councillor Joan Millbank

Councillor Pauline Morrison

Councillor John Muldoon

Councillor Marion Nisbet

Councillor Sam Owolabi-Oluyole

Councillor Crada Onuegbu Councillor Stephen Padmore

Councillor Jacq Paschoud

Councillor John Paschoud

Councillor Philip Peake

Councillor Alan Smith

Councillor Eva Stamirowski

Councillor Alan Till

Councillor Dan Whittle

Councillor Susan Wise

Council Agenda

Wednesday, 28 November 2012 7.30 pm , Civic Suite Lewisham Town Hall London SE6 4RU

For more information contact: Kevin Flaherty (Tel: 0208 314 9327)

Part 1

Item Page s

1. Declaration of interests 1 - 4

2. Announcements or Communications 5 - 6

3. Minutes 7

4. Petitions 8

5. Young Mayor 9 - 11

6. Community Covenant 12 - 17

7. Public questions 18 - 113

8. Member questions 114 - 196

9. Development Management Local Plan 197 - 199

10. CIL Draft Charging Schedule 200 - 231

11. Allocation of seats 232 - 237

12. Appointment Independent members Standards Committee 238 - 240

13. Action by Chair of Council 241 - 242

14. Motion 1 Proposed by Councillor Hall, Seconded by Councillor 243 Foxcroft

15. Motion 2 Proposed by Councillor Britton Seconded by Councillor 244 Maslin

Members of the public are welcome to attend committee meetings. However, occasionally, committees may have to consider some business in private. Copies of agendas, minutes and reports are available on request in Braille, in large print, on audio tape, on computer disk or in other languages.

16. Motion 3 Proposed by Councillor Ibitson Seconded by Councillor 245 Addison

17. Motion 4 Proposed by Councillor Brooks Seconded by Councillor 246 Maines

18. Motion 5 Proposed by Councillor Maines Seconded by Councillor 247 Feakes

19. Motion 6 Proposed by Councillor Fletcher Seconded by Councillor 248 Clutten

Agenda Item 1

COUNCIL

Report Title Declarations of Interests

Key Decision No Item No. 1

Ward n/a

Contributors Chief Executive

Class Part 1 Date: November 28 2012

Declaration of interests

Members are asked to declare any personal interest they have in any item on the agenda.

1 Personal interests

There are three types of personal interest referred to in the Council’s Member Code of Conduct :-

(1) Disclosable pecuniary interests (2) Other registerable interests (3) Non-registerable interests

2 Disclosable pecuniary interests are defined by regulation as:-

(a) Employment, trade, profession or vocation of a relevant person* for profit or gain

(b) Sponsorship –payment or provision of any other financial benefit (other than by the Council) within the 12 months prior to giving notice for inclusion in the register in respect of expenses incurred by you in carrying out duties as a member or towards your election expenses (including payment or financial benefit from a Trade Union).

(c) Undischarged contracts between a relevant person* (or a firm in which they are a partner or a body corporate in which they are a director, or in the securities of which they have a beneficial interest) and the Council for goods, services or works.

(d) Beneficial interests in land in the borough.

(e) Licence to occupy land in the borough for one month or more.

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\8\6\7\ai00004768\$nxhxdujw.doc Page 1 (f) Corporate tenancies – any tenancy, where to the member’s knowledge, the Council is landlord and the tenant is a firm in which the relevant person* is a partner, a body corporate in which they are a director, or in the securities of which they have a beneficial interest.

(g) Beneficial interest in securities of a body where:-

(a) that body to the member’s knowledge has a place of business or land in the borough; and

(b) either (i) the total nominal value of the securities exceeds £25,000 or 1/100 of the total issued share capital of that body; or

(ii) if the share capital of that body is of more than one class, the total nominal value of the shares of any one class in which the relevant person* has a beneficial interest exceeds 1/100 of the total issued share capital of that class.

*A relevant person is the member, their spouse or civil partner, or a person with whom they live as spouse or civil partner.

(3) Other registerable interests

The Lewisham Member Code of Conduct requires members also to register the following interests:-

(a) Membership or position of control or management in a body to which you were appointed or nominated by the Council

(b) Any body exercising functions of a public nature or directed to charitable purposes , or whose principal purposes include the influence of public opinion or policy, including any political party

(4) Non registerable interests

Occasions may arise when a matter under consideration would or would be likely to affect the wellbeing of a member, their family, friend or close associate more than it would affect the wellbeing of those in the local area generally, but which is not required to be registered in the Register of Members’ Interests (for example a matter concerning the closure of a school at which a Member’s child attends).

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\8\6\7\ai00004768\$nxhxdujw.doc Page 2 (5) Declaration and Impact of interest on members’ participation

(a) Where a member has any registerable interest in a matter and they are present at a meeting at which that matter is to be discussed, they must declare the nature of the interest at the earliest opportunity and in any event before the matter is considered. The declaration will be recorded in the minutes of the meeting. If the matter is a disclosable pecuniary interest the member must take not part in consideration of the matter and withdraw from the room before it is considered. They must not seek improperly to influence the decision in any way. Failure to declare such an interest which has not already been entered in the Register of Members’ Interests, or participation where such an interest exists, is liable to prosecution and on conviction carries a fine of up to £5000

(b) Where a member has a registerable interest which falls short of a disclosable pecuniary interest they must still declare the nature of the interest to the meeting at the earliest opportunity and in any event before the matter is considered, but they may stay in the room, participate in consideration of the matter and vote on it unless paragraph (c) below applies.

(c) Where a member has a registerable interest which falls short of a disclosable pecuniary interest, the member must consider whether a reasonable member of the public in possession of the facts would think that their interest is so significant that it would be likely to impair the member’s judgement of the public interest. If so, the member must withdraw and take no part in consideration of the matter nor seek to influence the outcome improperly.

(d) If a non-registerable interest arises which affects the wellbeing of a member, their, family, friend or close associate more than it would affect those in the local area generally, then the provisions relating to the declarations of interest and withdrawal apply as if it were a registerable interest.

(e) Decisions relating to declarations of interests are for the member’s personal judgement, though in cases of doubt they may wish to seek the advice of the Monitoring Officer.

(6) Sensitive information

There are special provisions relating to sensitive interests. These are interests the disclosure of which would be likely to expose the member to risk of violence or intimidation where the Monitoring Officer has agreed that such interest need not be registered. Members with such an interest are referred to the Code and advised to seek advice from the Monitoring Officer in advance.

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\8\6\7\ai00004768\$nxhxdujw.doc Page 3

(7) Exempt categories

There are exemptions to these provisions allowing members to participate in decisions notwithstanding interests that would otherwise prevent them doing so. These include:-

(a) Housing – holding a tenancy or lease with the Council unless the matter relates to your particular tenancy or lease; (subject to arrears exception) (b) School meals, school transport and travelling expenses; if you are a parent or guardian of a child in full time education, or a school governor unless the matter relates particularly to the school your child attends or of which you are a governor; (c) Statutory sick pay; if you are in receipt (d) Allowances, payment or indemnity for members (e) Ceremonial honours for members (f) Setting Council Tax or precept (subject to arrears exception)

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\8\6\7\ai00004768\$nxhxdujw.doc Page 4 Agenda Item 2

COUNCIL

Report Title Announcements or Communications

Key Decision Item No.

Ward

Contributors Chief Executive

Class Part 1 Date: November 28 2012

Recommendation

The Council is invited to receive any announcements or communications from the Mayor or the Chief Executive.

1. Report of the Returning Officer

Following the resignation of Councillor Pete Pattisson, the Councillor elected for the London Borough of Lewisham at the by-election held on 11 October 2012 for a period of office expiring in May 2014 was as follows:-

Ward Surname Other Description Home Address Names

Whitefoot INGLEBY Mark The Labour 36 Longhill William Party Road, London, Candidate SE6 1TY

2. Former Councillor Paul Newing

It is with regret that the death of former Councillor Paul Newing is reported. He was 46.

Paul served three terms as a Councillor from 1990-1994 for Hither Green Ward and two terms for Ladywell Ward from 1994-2002. At the time of his death he was Chair of the Lewisham Local History Society. He was also a frequent visitor to the Town Hall for various meetings.

His funeral takes place on 27 November at Hither Green Crematorium.

3. Former Councillor Pam Silk

It is with sadness that the death of former Councillor Pam Silk is reported. She was 92.

She served as a Councillor for Manor Lee Ward from 1968-71 and on the death of her then serving husband won a by-election in 1975 in St Mildred Lee and served until 1978.

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\7\6\7\ai00004767\$d2zvayll.doc Page 5 Her funeral took place at Hither Green Crematorium on Monday, 22 October at 2.30 p.m.

The Council will be asked to stand in silence in memory of both former councillors.

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\7\6\7\ai00004767\$d2zvayll.docPage 6 Agenda Item 3

COUNCIL

Report Title Minutes

Key Decision Item No.2

Ward

Contributors Chief Executive

Class Part 1 Date: November 28 2012

Recommendation

It is recommended that the minutes of the meeting of the Council which was open to the press and public, held on September 26 2012 be confirmed and signed (copy previously circulated).

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\9\6\7\ai00004769\$ty15lcsm.docPage 7 Agenda Item 4

COUNCIL

Report Title Petitions

Key Decision no Item No.

Ward n/a

Contributors Chief Executive (Head of Business & Committee)

Class Part 1 Date: November 28 2012

The Council is invited to receive petitions (if any) from members of the Council or the public. There is no requirement to give prior notice of any petitions that might be presented.

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\0\7\7\ai00004770\$0x4v5e1c.docPage 8 Agenda Item 5

COUNCIL

Report Title The Young Mayor of Lewisham

Key Decision Item No.

Ward All

Contributors Chief Executive (Head of Business & Committee)

Class Part 1 Date: November 28 2012

The Young Mayor of Lewisham

On 24 March 2004 the Council endorsed the Mayor's decisions on the proposal to set up and fund the office of an annually elected Young Mayor.

The Mayor also agreed to set up an advisory group of between 12 to 30 young people to support the Young Mayor. These young people will also serve for a 1 year period and will be drawn from school councils and other representative forums from across the borough. The membership will have a degree of flexibility to allow for co-options for particular areas of interest. The group will also allow for non- successful young mayoral candidates to participate.

The Young Mayor will be an adviser to both the Mayor and to the Council as a whole, bringing a young person’s perspective to issues of interest. The Young Mayor will, through various programmes have access to a wider cross section of young people’s views and will be able to reflect these where appropriate. The Young Mayor will also have access to the Local Strategic Partnership; advise the Children and Young People’s Strategic Partnership Board; and be at the forefront of the framework for youth participation in the borough.

The election for a Young Mayor for 2012/13 was held on 11 October 2012 with 21 candidates on the ballot paper. As a result, on a turn out of 52.58.%, Jamel Higgins was elected Young Mayor for the year 2012/13.

The candidate with the second highest number of votes, Kojo Kankam, will act as his Deputy Mayor during his year of office. The third and fourth placed candidates, Alice Schweigert and Fola Afolabi will represent the Borough at the UK Youth Parliament.

A Code of Conduct for the Young Mayor and the Deputy Mayor is attached as an Appendix.

Page 9

Both the Young Mayor and the appointed Deputy Mayor have been invited to attend the meeting to sign their Declaration of Acceptance of Office, and an undertaking that they will abide by the Code of Conduct for their respective offices, which will be witnessed by the Chief Executive. An invitation to attend the meeting has also been extended to the members of the Advisory Group who will support the Young Mayor during his year of office.

Page 10

COUNCIL MEETING 28 NOVEMBER 2012 APPENDIX ITEM NO.

Young Mayor for Lewisham

Code of Conduct

Purpose

This Code of Conduct for the Young Mayor, and the Deputy Young Mayor, is designed to promote public confidence in the actions of elected representatives, and will apply whenever they carry out activities on behalf of the Council, or act as representatives of the Council.

The Code

I agree that I will carry out any duties required of me to the best of my ability, and recognise I have a special duty to all young people in Lewisham, including those who did not vote for me.

I agree that I will work closely with the Mayor, the Council, the Young Advisers and the Young Citizens’ Panel, and report regularly to the young people of Lewisham.

I agree that I will not produce materials or use access to publicity that is disrespectful to other young people, the Council or the Mayor.

I recognise that if I bring the office of Young Mayor into disrepute or if a complaint is made against me, that I may be subject to an investigation carried out by the Chief Executive. If any allegations or breaches of code of conduct are upheld then I recognise that my term of office may be terminated immediately.

I agree that I will not behave in a sexist, racist or other manner that may offend or discriminate against people.

And furthermore, as the key representative of young people within the borough, I will try and challenge such behaviour if I come across it.

Signed …………………………………………. Dated: 28 November 2012

Page 11 Agenda Item 6

COUNCIL

Report Title Community Covenant

Key Decision No Item No.

Ward All

Contributors Chief Executive (Civic Business Manager)

Class Part 1 Date: November 28 2012

BACKGROUND

In 2011 the Prime Minister announced the creation of Community Covenants. All U.K. local authorities are being encouraged to participate.

The aim of the covenant is to encourage the local community to support in a tangible way, its local armed forces. It is intended to promote an understanding of service life and encourage partnership workings to integrate the armed forces into the local community.

Lewisham has an excellent track record of supporting its local armed forces. In 2000 it adopted all the local cadet units, and in 2007 Lewisham staged a welcome home reception for Lewisham service personnel returning from Iraq.

Also since the creation of Armed Forces Day Lewisham has arranged an annual service at the Allerford Road Memorial Garden in Bellingham to recognise its veterans from all conflicts. Last year the Council formally adopted 1475 Squadron ATC to cement the relationship that has existed for over seventy years with the squadron and to honour them after they were judged as the best ATC unit in the whole of the UK. And, each November Lewisham stages two Remembrance Sunday Services in the borough attended jointly by around 1,500 people.

The Council is asked to sign up to a covenant with partners to demonstrate its ongoing commitment and appreciation for our local armed forces. The covenant document is a statement of this borough’s mutual support between our civilian and armed forces communities. The basis of Lewisham’s covenant is outlined in this agreement document.

The formal signing of the covenant document with the relevant partners is proposed to take place in the near future at one of the military establishments based in the borough.

Page 12

RECOMMENDATIONS

That

1. The Council agrees in principle to enter into a covenant with partners to demonstrate its ongoing commitment and appreciation for our local armed forces.

2. The formal signing of the covenant document with the relevant partners is takes place in the near future at one of the military establishments based in the borough.

Community Covenant

AN ARMED FORCES COMMUNITY COVENANT

BETWEEN

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM, REPRESENTATIVES OF THE CHARITABLE AND VOLUNTARY SECTORS, THE CIVILIAN COMMUNITY OF LEWISHAM

AND

THE ARMED FORCES COMMUNITY OF THE LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

Page 13 THE ARMED FORCES COVENANT

An Enduring Covenant Between:

1. The People of the United Kingdom;

2. Her Majesty’s Government;

3. All those who serve or have served in the Armed Forces of the Crown;

4. Their Families.

The first duty of Government is the defence of the realm. Our Armed Forces fulfil that responsibility on behalf of the Government, sacrificing some civilian freedoms, facing danger and, sometimes, suffering serious injury or death as a result of their duty. Families also play a vital role in supporting the operational effectiveness of our Armed Forces. In return, the whole nation has a moral obligation to the members of the Naval Service, the Army and the Royal Air Force, together with their families. They deserve our respect and support, and fair treatment.

Those who serve in the Armed Forces, whether Regular or Reserve, those who have served in the past, and their families, should face no disadvantage compared to other citizens in the provision of public and commercial services. Special consideration is appropriate in some cases, especially for those who have given most such as the injured and the bereaved.

This obligation involves the whole of society: it includes voluntary and charitable bodies, private organisations, and the actions of individuals in supporting the Armed Forces. Recognising those who have performed military duty unites the country and demonstrates the value of their contribution. This has no greater expression than in upholding this Covenant.

Page 14 SECTION 1: PARTICIPANTS

1.1 This Armed Forces Community Covenant is made between:

The serving and former members of the Armed Forces and their families working and residing in Lewisham

And

The London Borough of Lewisham

And

The Charitable and Voluntary Sector

And

Other members of the civilian community

SECTION 2: PRINCIPLES OF THE ARMED FORCES COMMUNITY COVENANT

2.1 The Armed Forces Community Covenant is a voluntary statement of mutual support between a civilian community and its local Armed Forces Community. It is intended to complement the Armed Forces Covenant, which outlines the moral obligation between the Nation, the Government and the Armed Forces at the local level.

2.2 The purpose of this Community Covenant is to encourage support for the Armed Forces Community working and residing in London and to recognise and remember the sacrifices made by members of the Armed Forces Community, particularly those who have given the most. This includes Pre-Service, Serving and ex-Service personnel, their families and widow(ers) in London.

2.3 For the London Borough of Lewisham and partner organisations, the Community Covenant presents an opportunity to bring their knowledge, experience and expertise to bear on the provision of help and advice to members of the Armed Forces Community. It also presents an opportunity to build upon existing good work on other initiatives.

2.4 For the Armed Forces community, the Community Covenant encourages the integration of Service life into civilian life and

Page 15 encourages members of the Armed Forces community to help their community.

SECTION 3: OBJECTIVES AND GENERAL INTENTIONS

Aims of the Community Covenant

3.1 The Armed Forces Community Covenant complements the principles of the Armed Forces Covenant which defines the enduring, general principles that governs the relationship between the Nation, the Government and the Armed Forces community.

3.2 It aims to encourage all parties within a community to offer support to the local Armed Forces community and make it easier for service personnel, families and veterans to access the help and support available from the MOD, from statutory providers and from the Charitable and Voluntary Sector. These organisations already work together in partnership at local level.

3.3 The scheme is intended to be a two-way arrangement and the Armed Forces community are encouraged to do as much as they can to support their community and promote activity which integrates the service community into civilian life.

SECTION 4: MEASURES

4.1 The Covenant seeks civic support in the following broad areas: adult support to cadet forces; enabling recruitment; school transition for service children; advice on accessing key Council services, support to local veterans and post operational home-coming events plus support to local reservists.

4.2 The Covenant suggests military support in the following areas: aid in civil emergencies as permitted by legislation; access to the military establishments and facilities; representation at celebrations, commemorations and parades in the borough and sharing with partner organisations such as uniformed youth, (YOU), veterans and the third sector.

4.3 It is acknowledged that in the current financial climate that support in all directions will have resource constraints on these measures.

Page 16

Armed Forces Community Covenant

Signed this 28 th day of November 2012 at a meeting of the full Council of the London Borough of Lewisham.

Sir Steve Bullock Mayor of Lewisham ………………………………………………………

Councillor Pauline Morrison Lewisham Council’s Representative for Reserve Forces and Cadets Association

………………………………………………………

Councillor Joan Millbank Cabinet Member for the Third Sector: …………………………………..

Lieutenant Colonel Brian Fahy, MBE Joint Regional Liaison Officer HQ London District: …………………….

Royal Navy Representative: ………………………………………….

Royal Air Force Representative: ……………………………………..

Army Representative: …………………………………………………

Tony Nickson Voluntary Action Lewisham Director: ……………………………….

Page 17 Agenda Item 7

COUNCIL

Report Title Public Questions

Key Decision Item No.5

Ward

Contributors Chief Executive (Head of Business & Committee)

Class Part 1 Date: November 28 2012

. The Council has received 54 questions from members of the public in the order shown in the table below. Written responses will be provided to the questioners prior to the Council meeting and they will be entitled to attend and ask a supplementary question should they wish to.

Question Questioner

1. Mr Bays 2. Mr Woolford(on behalf of Lewisham People Before Profit) 3. Mr S Mills 4. Mr B Supiya (Representatve for Goldcrest, Supercuts and the Honeypot) 5. Mr A Bradbury 6. Mrs P Richardson 7. Ms J Hurst 8. Ms F McCapra 9. Mr K Nzerem 10. Mr P Richardson 11. Ms A Lonsdale 12. Ms M Kerrane 13. Ms J McCulloch 14. Ms V Lloyd 15. Ms O Fuchs 16. Ms M Riddell 17. Ms S Harris 18. Ms L Seabright 19. Ms D Jayasinghe 20. Mr P Davies 21. Mr A Lyons 22. Ms J McMahon 23. Ms K Franklin 24. Ms K Staples 25. Mr Bays 26. Mr Woolford(onbehalf of Lewisham People Before Profit) 27. Mr S Mills 28. Mr B Supiya (Representatve for Goldcrest, Supercuts and

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\2\7\7\ai00004772\$ptz150nm.docPage 18 the Honeypot) 29. Ms J Hurst 30. Mr A Lyons 31. Mr P Richardson 32. Mrs P Richardson 33. Ms K Franklin 34. Mr Bays 35. Mr Woolford (on behalf of Lewisham People Before Profit) 36. Mr S Mills 37. Mr B Supiya (Representatve for Goldcrest, Supercuts and the Honeypot) 38. Mr P Richardson 39. Mr Woolford (on behalf of Lewisham People Before Profit) 40. Mr S Mills 41. Mr B Supiya (Representatve for Goldcrest, Supercuts and the Honeypot) 42. Mr P Richardson 43. Mr R Woolford 44. Mr S Mills 45. Mr B Supiya (Representatve for Goldcrest, Supercuts and the Honeypot) 46. Mr P Richardson 47. Mr Woolford 48. Mr S Mills 49. Mr S Mills 50. Mr Woolford 51. Mr Woolford 52. Mr Woolford 53. Mr Woolford 54. Mr Woolford

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\2\7\7\ai00004772\$ptz150nm.docPage 19 Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 1

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question asked by: Mr A Bays

Member to reply: Deputy Mayor

Question

Has the Council studied the extent to which recent property developments in London such as the Shard at London Bridge have been financed with the support of overseas investors?

How much outside finance has been obtained towards the £9m cost of renovating the Forest Hill Pools?

The Council takes a keen interest in property developments across London and is aware of the potential for inward investment in parts of the Capital.

The Council wholly funded the cost of the renovation of Forest Hill Pools as the potential for overseas investment in Forest Hill is considered to be somewhat lower than London Bridge.

Page 20

Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 2

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question asked by: Mr R Woolford (on behalf of Lewisham People Before Profit)

Member to reply: Councillor Maslin

Question

In view of the expected closure of the Lewisham Hospital A&E Closure owing to the near bankruptcy of the Area Health Authority because of the PFI introduced by the last Labour Government, will the Council confirm that it will no longer take part in PFI deals in the Borough.

The Trust Special Administrator has published a document ‘Securing Sustainable NHS Services’. In it, he gives a number of arguments, for the rationale of closure of Lewisham Hospital A&E. The Hospital PFI is but one of these arguments. The Council and its officers are looking very carefully at the recommendations of the Trust Special Administrator, analysing all reasons given and will be responding to the current consultation.

However, at the council we have used PFI finance to fund much needed investment in schools and other infrastructure and our existing PFI commitments are affordable. We are not currently planning new PFI

Page 21 investment, but do not rule it out should a suitable opportunity arise to lever in affordable investment finance this way.

Page 22

Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 3

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question asked by: Mr S Mills

Member to reply: Councillor Maslin

Question

How many requests for information to Lewisham under the Freedom of Information Act have been referred to the Information Commissioner’s Office by members of the public, since September 2010?

There have been 10 cases referred to the Information Commissioner’s Office since September 2010.

Page 23

Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 4

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question asked by: Mr B Supiya (Representative for Goldcrest, Supercuts and The Honeypot)

Member to reply: Deputy Mayor

Question

In the last session the Council undertook to contact me in relation to the single refusal for the application for a street closure during the Jubilee Weekend, did it not? Can the Council confirm whether that refusal letter was to Mr Headley of the Honeypot and can they provide a copy of the refusal letter as Mr Headley never received such a letter?

The Council did not send out a refusal letter to Mr Headley. An officer did speak to Mr Headley by phone on the 29 th May and he and a colleague met with the same officer on the following day. It was explained that the refusal to grant a street closure was due to past problems during a previous street party at this location.

Page 24

Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 5

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question asked by: Mr A Bradbury

Member to reply: Councillor Klier

Question

Does Council agree that Lewisham's Generation Play Clubs provide invaluable support, both peer-group and professional, to women especially during the first few months of motherhood?

The Generation Play Clubs do provide opportunities for parents to access support, but there is a range of other opportunities available through maternity services, health visitors and Children’s Centres, including carer and toddler groups, stay and play services and a range of services and these will continue to be actively promoted.

No decision has yet been taken about the future of Generation Play Clubs.

Parents and organisations can make their views known through the drop-in sessions or through the on-line consultation at http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/getinvolved/influence/Pages/Consultations.aspx

Page 25 The outcome of the consultation will be reported to the Mayor before he makes a decision.

A full equalities analysis assessment will also be undertaken and this will include the impact on the local area and on local residents and users of the club.

Page 26

Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 6

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question asked by: Mrs P Richardson

Member to reply: Deputy Mayor

Question

Is the Council aware that Eco Computer Systems has lodged a document at Companies House called MGO1, Particulars of a mortgage or charge, (dated 24/9/2012) which lists Crofton Park Community Library, 375 Brockley Road, Brockley, London, SE4 2AG and Sydenham Community Library, 210 Sydenham Road, London, SE26 5SE in the section called Short Particulars, under paragraph (a) Properties?

Does the Council see any implications or future ramifications for itself with respect to these two buildings because of this document?

The Council is aware that an MGO1 has been lodged and is currently in discussions with Eco Computer Systems regarding this. The MG01 relates to a charge created under the terms of a grant funding agreement which Eco Computers Systems have entered into with London Reuse Limited. It is standard for grant funding to be secured in this way. Any charge affects Eco

Page 27 Computer Systems’ leasehold interest only and the Council has no liability for repayment. The future use of the buildings is unaffected

Page 28

Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 7

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question asked by: Ms J Hurst

Member to reply: Councillor Wise

Question

Does the Council plan to introduce domestic food waste collection for recycling? If so, what is the time-scale and how will it be publicised?

The Council has investigated the possibility of introducing food waste collections but at this time it is not financially viable.

Lewisham is in a unique position in that it incinerates most of its residual waste and as such doesn’t have the same legislative and economic drivers as many other local authorities: diversion from more expensive landfill has acted as a financial incentive to collect food waste separately in other boroughs.

Page 29

Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 8

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question asked by: Ms F McCapra

Member to reply: Councillor Klier

Question

Please could the Council share its statistics on the use and cost of the Generation Playclubs, including details of collection and analysis of the data?

Our data shows that between 60% and 80% of users of the Generation Play Clubs attended the provision five times or fewer over a ten month period from April 2011. On this basis, to cover the costs of the Clubs, we would need to charge an average of £34.73 per visit. Information was collected from the registration documents completed by parents and carers, and from attendance records. Currently, the Council spends approximately £500,000 on the Generation Play Clubs.

Page 30 Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 9

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question asked by: Mr K Nzerem

Member to reply: Councillor Klier

Question

Have you done an impact assessment on the closure of the Telegraph Hill Play Centre ? Have you done an equality assessment on the impact it will have on women, single parents and Minorities?

What were the findings of this impact assessment? Have you done an impact assessment on additional costs users will incur if it closes down?

Have you considered the psychological impact of the building falling into ruin, and consequent degradation of the park or the pressure on other services that will be brought to bear as parents and carers look elsewhere for support?

Have you considered the potential increase in crime in the local area if families are no longer there en masse to provide a moral backbone to behaviour in the park?

A full Equality Analysis Assessment will be completed prior to the date the Mayor considers the proposal. This will be informed by the consultation and

Page 31 this will include the impact on the local area and on local residents and users of the club, including any potential impact on crime.

Children’s Centres and other partners continue to provide a range of services and activities for children and families.

The Council is committed to supporting other organisations or groups of parents who wish to raise alternative funding to use the site to prevent the building being unused.

We want to work with any parents or organisations who would be interested in using the sites with alternative sources of funding. We are holding individual meetings for those who are interested and also holding a series of drop-in sessions as part of the public consultation.

Parents and organisations can make their views known through the drop-in sessions or through the on-line consultation at http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/getinvolved/influence/Pages/Consultations.aspx

No decision has yet been taken about the future of Generation Play Clubs. The outcome of the consultation will be reported to the Mayor before he makes a decision.

Page 32

Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 10

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question asked by: Mr P Richardson

Member to reply: Councillor Best

Question

Alerted by potential breaches of the Data Protection Act by the Council, volunteer-run libraries and custormers, a satisfactory solution was found by Lewisham's engagement of the Axiell Group to act as intermediaries between library-card holding customers and Lewisham's Library and Information Service at the 'Community Libraries' now in operation in the borough.

The volunteer staff at the community libraries are therefore not privy to information held on customers library cards, thus upholding the Data Protection Act, for example, when customers reserve books etc.

However, the big question is was there any agreement made between Lewisham Council and the Axiell Group to retain (store) the personal information of library card holders in house, or is the Axiell Group at liberty to divulge this information to any Government or commercial agency, foreign or domestic, fee-paying or otherwise?

Page 33

Axiell UK – in line with all the manufacturers of Library Management Systems in the world – have all the necessary measures in place to protect personal and sensitive information linked to the management of borrower and stock records .

The Library Management System exists to manage and store these records.

The Axiell solution adopted in Lewisham, and throughout the London Library Consortium, holds the data on servers owned and managed by Axiell UK.

It is specified in the contract between the individual authorities and Axiell, however, that the content (i.e. borrower and stock records) is owned by the individual local authorities.

Axiell are not at liberty to dispose of or capitalise on this information .

Page 34

Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 11

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question asked by: Ms A Lonsdale

Member to reply: Councillor Klier

Question

In an area of London which is deprived and in much need of free resources, why would a play club used by vulnerable mothers and carers be under threat of closure? Surely the councils priority is to protect and care for those members of society badly in need.

Does the Cabinet Member agree that Telegraph Hill play club provides a safe and welcoming place for every child in need and by supporting the play club, the Council in turn would be supporting each child in need by nurturing and allowing every child to grow and learn.

The Generation Play Clubs are free at the point of use, but have a cost of approximately half a million pounds to provide. Although clearly valued by those that use them, the significant savings required by the Council will inevitably mean some changes to the way we organise services for children.

Page 35 Other services, particularly for families in the greatest need, are available from a range of providers such as Children’s Centres, schools and leisure facilities.

Details of other services are available through the Family Information Service on the Council’s website. We are currently undertaking a public consultation, which includes meetings with parents at each site and meetings with parents’ groups and organisations.

No decision has yet been taken on this proposal and the outcomes of the public consultations will be reported to the Mayor before he makes a decision.

Responses can also be made online at: http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/getinvolved/influence/Pages/Consultations.aspx

Page 36

Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 12

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question asked by: Ms M Kerrane

Member to reply: Councillor Klier

Question

How highly does council rate 1)The drop in (non session) nature of their time tables and, 2) their park settings when accounting for the success of Lewisham's Generation Playclubs?

The Generation Play Clubs are clearly valued by those who use them. Nonetheless, the Council must consider how best to focus its resources on those most in need. The evidence shows us that some clubs are used more than others. Between 60% and 80% of users attended the Play Clubs five times or fewer over a ten month period from April 2011.

Page 37

Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 13

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question asked by: Ms J McCulloch

Member to reply: Councillor Klier

Question

Given the rising birth rate in the borough (as evidenced by the increased requirement for primary school places), how has the council ensured that play club provision is sufficient to meet its aim “that all pre-school children in Lewisham have access to high quality care, education and play”? What action will the council take to ensure that this aim will be met in future?

The Council’s statutory responsibility is to ensure that there is a sufficiency of under 5s childcare available. Generation Play Clubs do not count as childcare because they are “stay and play” services. Parents do not leave their children at the clubs. The Council has recently reviewed the availability of childcare provision in the borough. Our current review shows we have 9314 childcare places for under 5s in the borough and based on the current pattern of demand this is sufficient for the population of under 5s for the next two years.

Page 38

Question Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 14

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question asked by: Ms V Lloyd

Member to reply: Councillor Klier

Question

With the steep borough-wide rise in childhood obesity, are not Generation Playclubs, situated as they are in Lewisham parks with fresh air and outdoor play facilities, preferential to timetabled slots in indoor centres?

Reply The Council is committed to helping families tackle obesity and this is a priority in our Children and Young People’s Plan. There are already a number of activities in place across the borough to tackle childhood obesity, including through our Children’s Centres, schools and leisure facilities, as well as the high number of parks and playgrounds in the Borough.

No decision has yet been taken on this proposal and the outcomes of the public consultations will be reported to the Mayor before he makes a decision.

Page 39

Question Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 15

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question asked by: Ms O Fuchs

Member to reply: Councillor Klier

Question

Who decided that the Children's Society should take over the running of Lewisham Children's Centres but not the Generation Playclubs, and why?

We have been able to maintain our network of Children’s Centres by commissioning these through The Children’s Society in the north and centre of the borough. We also have Children’s Centre provision through the Pre-school Learning Alliance in the south of the borough and school-based Children’s Centres. The Generation Play Clubs were not included as part of the Children’s Centre provision, because they do not form part of the targeted service that Children’s Centres provide. The Generation Play Clubs are a non-statutory service designed to provide universal play and stay opportunities within our parks.

Page 40

Question Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 16

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question asked by: Ms M Riddell

Member to reply: Councillor Klier

Question

What has been the usage of the Telegraph Hill Club during 2011 and 2012? What are the numbers of families using the facility? Are there days when the facility is not used? Is there a pattern of usage?

The number of visits in the period April 2011 to March 2012 totalled 1471. A large percentage of families (72.9%) used the Club five times or fewer during the year, which suggests the main use is occasional or during holiday times.

Page 41

Question Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 17

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question asked by: Ms S Harris

Member to reply: Councillor Klier

Question

Why is the Council Unit in charge of Play Parks known as Early Intervention Service as this gives a negative slant to the scheme? Why not Early Support Service which immediately sounds welcoming and helpful?

The Generation Play Clubs were part of our previous service, which was known as the Children’s Centres, Childcare and Play Service. This became the Early Intervention and Access Service in June 2012, following significant cuts from the Government which meant we had to reorganise and reshape provision to be more targeted for those families who need most support. The Generation Play Clubs were retained even though they provide “stay and play” opportunities for everyone. However, further cuts from the Government have meant that we have had to consider options for their future.

Page 42 The name of the service reflects our commitment to ensuring early intervention across a range of agencies, which includes support to families but also the support and guidance the service offers to agencies to ensure they are able to identify and meet families’ needs.

Page 43

Question

Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 18

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question asked by: Ms L Seabright

Member to reply: Councillor Klier

Question

Would the Council intend that families with under 5s, including vulnerable mums and babies, in overcrowded homes should continue to get daily, free, drop-in, local access to facilities that give opportunities for creative play with toys of all sizes and affordability as well as providing socialising opportunities with children from all backgrounds that has been provided by the Generation Playclubs since the mid 1960's, and please detail how this would be provided following the proposed closure of Telegraph Hill Generations Playclub and others in Lewisham?

The level of cuts the Government is requiring us to make means that we have to consider savings proposals across all services. We want to ensure that our reducing resources are used to support families and children who need it

Page 44 most. We are keeping open all our Children’s Centres and also encouraging the voluntary sector and others to use the centres for the benefit of all families.

We are keen to explore, with local groups and organisations which are interested, alternative ways of using the sites without Council funding.

No decision has yet been taken on this proposal and the outcomes of the public consultations will be reported to the Mayor before he makes a decision.

Page 45

Question

Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 19

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question asked by: Ms D Jayasinghe

Member to reply: Councillor Klier

Question

For many families who cannot afford the cost of nurseries and childcare the Telegraph Hill Playgroup is one of few local, free facilities where children can acquire important life skills. Please can you advise me of what will be offered in its place to ensure local children under 3 have a safe, warm place to play and develop skills which will be so important to them as they learn and grow?

Children’s Centres provide a range of activities which cater for such families e.g. carer and toddler groups, childminding drop-ins, stay & play services, and much more.

More information is available through the Family Information Service on the Council website.

Page 46

Question

Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 20

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question asked by: Mr P Davies

Member to reply: Councillor Klier

Question

I would like to hear from you directly about what Lewisham Council plans are for the Telegraph Hill Play Club. Please also tell me how I can make my voice heard about how important the park is, and how I can further engage with Lewisham Council in this regard.

Does the Cabinet Member believe that the savings that would accrue from closing the Play Club are worth the loss of such a crucially important resource for our community and its children.

The level of savings the Council needs to make because of Government cuts will require significant changes to the way we organise and deliver support to children. Although we are proposing to close the Generation Play Clubs, we

Page 47 are keen to explore with local organisations and groups of parents alternative ways of using the sites without Council funding.

Parents and organisations can make their views known through the drop-in sessions or through the on-line consultation at http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/getinvolved/influence/Pages/Consultations.aspx

No decision has yet been taken about the future of Generation Play Clubs. The outcome of the consultation will be reported to the Mayor before he makes a decision.

A full equalities analysis assessment will also be undertaken and this will include the impact on the local area and on local residents and uses of the club.

A savings of £500,000 can be made through the closure of the Generation Play Clubs which is a significant amount.

Page 48

Question

Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 21

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question asked by: Mr A Lyons

Member to reply: Councillor Klier

Question

Derelict buildings convey negative impressions and carry a local impact on communities. As social centres close, the look and feel of the empty, unused buildings limit the vibrancy of the area around them. Has the council considered this impact on the local community with regards to the suggested closure of the Telegraph HIll Generations Playclub? What are the findings, background and methodology behind this assessment?

Reply We would prefer that the buildings are used, and are therefore keen to hear from organisations or groups of parents who would be interested in using them, using alternative sources of funding.

We want to work with any parents or organisations who would be interested in using the sites with alternative sources of funding. We are holding individual

Page 49 meetings for those who are interested and also holding a series of drop-in sessions as part of the public consultation.

Parents and organisations can make their views known through the drop-in sessions or through the on-line consultation at http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/getinvolved/influence/Pages/Consultations.aspx

The usage of the Play Clubs has been analysed and shows that between 60% and 80% of users attended five times or fewer over a ten month period.

No decision has yet been taken on this proposal and the outcomes of the public consultations will be reported to the Mayor before he makes a decision.

A full equalities analysis assessment will also be undertaken and this will include the impact on the local area and on local residents and uses of the club.

Page 50

Question

Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 22

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question asked by: Ms J McMahon

Member to reply: Councillor Klier

Question

The centre is an integral part of Telegraph Hill, and is welcoming and accessible to all.

What pre school services will continue to be maintained within the Telegraph Hill area?

What saving does the closure of the Telegraph Hill Play Group represent against the overall budget for pre school services in the Lewisham Borough?

What is the rationale for choosing this pre school service for closure?

Page 51 Reply

The level of savings the Council needs to make, because of Government cuts will require significant changes to the way we organise and deliver support to children. The Generation Play Club is not a pre-school but provides activities for parents/carers and their children. Alternative activities are available through Children’s Centres, St James Family Learning Centre, schools, leisure facilities, parks and playgrounds.

Details of local services are available through the Family Information Services on the Council website.

The overall saving expected from ceasing the Play Clubs will be over £500,000 per year, of which Telegraph Hill represents £61,500.

Page 52

Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 23

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question asked by: Ms K Franklin

Member to reply: Councillor Klier

Question

I am a Lewisham resident appalled by the decision to close the Telegraph Hill Playclub.

I am keen to find out what consideration is being given to encouraging local parents/businesses to take over the funding/running of the club? It would be a terrible waste of space and resources if it was just to be locked up and allowed to rot.

Whereas if it was run as private enterprise (like a cafe charging a tiny entrance cost), perhaps at least half of its running costs could be covered?

The level of savings the Council needs to make, because of Government cuts will require significant changes to the way we organise and deliver support to children. Although we are proposing to close the Generation Play Clubs, we are keen to explore with local organisations and groups of parents who are able to raise funds to use the sites in alternative ways.

Page 53

Parents and organisations can make their views known through the drop-in sessions or through the on-line consultation at http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/getinvolved/influence/Pages/Consultations.aspx

No decision has yet been taken about the future of Generation Play Clubs. The outcome of the consultation will be reported to the Mayor before he makes a decision.

A full equalities analysis assessment will also be undertaken and this will include the impact on the local area and on local residents and uses of the club.

Page 54

Question Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 24

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question asked by: Ms K Staples

Member to reply: Councillor Klier

Question

Will you consider the importance of the Telegraph Hill play club to the local people and leave it open. Perhaps it could be partly self funding - a small donation from those who use it. Surely there is a way to keep this much needed and loved facility open.

The level of savings the Council needs to make, because of Government cuts, require significant changes to the way we organise and deliver support to children. The Play Clubs cost in the region of £500,000 to run currently. Although we are proposing to close the Generation Play Clubs, we are keen to explore with local organisations and groups of parents who are able to raise funds to use the sites in alternative ways.

We want to work with any parents or organisations who would be interested in using the sites with alternative sources of funding. We are holding individual

Page 55 meetings for those who are interested and also holding a series of drop-in sessions as part of the public consultation.

Parents and organisations can make their views known through the drop-in sessions or through the on-line consultation at http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/getinvolved/influence/Pages/Consultations.aspx

No decision has yet been taken about the future of Generation Play Clubs. The outcome of the consultation will be reported to the Mayor before he makes a decision.

A full equalities analysis assessment will also be undertaken and this will include the impact on the local area and on local residents and uses of the club.

Page 56

Question Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 25

Priority 2

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question asked by: Mr A Bays

Member to reply: Councillor Wise

Question

How many Council tenants does Lewisham have who currently pay no Council tax but will have to pay 30% of their charge under the new rules in the coming financial year ?

What is the corresponding figure for Lewisham Homes?

How much will the scheme cost the Council to operate?

The Council transferred its landlord responsibilities to Lewisham Homes. There are 6,701 Lewisham Homes tenants in receipt of 100% Council Tax Benefit. If the Council agrees a Council Tax Reduction Scheme that passes on the cut in government grant these tenants will pay an average additional 15% of their Council Tax bill.

Council Tax Benefit is processed alongside Housing Benefit and the costs are not separated. Unlike most other local authorities the Benefit Service is

Page 57 operating within the Department for Work and Pensions administration grant of £3.9m for 2012/13.

If the Council agrees to implement the Council Tax Reduction Scheme it consulted on it will operate in exactly the same way as the Council Tax Benefit scheme so the administration costs are not expected to change.

Page 58

Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 26

Priority 2

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question asked by: Mr R Woolford (on behalf of Lewisham People Before Profit)

Member to reply: The Mayor

Question

Can The Mayor please confirm how many jobs and positions he presently holds in addition to his elected position as the Mayor of Lewisham?

Can the Mayor confirm how much money he earns in wages and allowances for these additional jobs?

Can the Mayor please confirm what hours he is contracted to do, in order to carry out his other work commitments?

The question as set out appears to be based on a misconception. There are over 150 local authorities in England excluding parish councils and they need to engage with other tiers of government jointly on many issues. In order to make this possible groupings of local authorities exist at both regional and

Page 59 local level. In Lewisham’s case these are the Local Government Association and London Councils.

These bodies call upon the elected councillors and mayors from their member authorities to take on additional responsibilities in providing leadership on that joint work.

In my own case I lead the Local Government Association’s work in relation to workforce issues including the Local Government Pension Scheme and Pay and Conditions of Service. The LGA has a published scheme of allowances for those members who undertake such work.

London Councils nominates a number of leaders and mayors from the London Boroughs to lead its work in specific areas of common concern, I have led on Housing since 2010. I was also asked to lead the work on reducing the size of the London Boroughs Grants Scheme which involved serving as chair of that body. Having achieved a considerable saving to the member boroughs I stepped down from that position in July. London Councils also has a published scheme of allowances for those members who undertake that work. While both positions are eligible for an allowance under London Council’s scheme only a single allowance is paid.

Lewisham Council’s scheme of allowances which is based on independent advice set the Special Responsibility Allowance for the mayor at £77,722. As Chair of the Local Government Association’s Workforce Board I am also automatically the chair of the board of Local Government Employers which pays an allowance of £15,556. London Council’s lead members receive an allowance of £10,499.

All the information contained here was already in the public domain and easily available on the web sites of the relevant organisations. These allowances are paid on a PAYE basis and are, of course, subject to tax and NI at the appropriate levels. I have made no claims for expenses since being elected in May 2010.

I also represent London Councils on the board of the Museum of London – this is an unremunerated position.

I was recently invited to become a Trustee of the Surrey Canal Sports Foundation which is seeking to develop a new sports complex in the borough which is again an unremunerated position.

I hold two further unremunerated positions which are not directly attributable to my position as mayor of Lewisham. These are as a director of the New Local Government Network and as a co-opted member of the Horniman Museum and Gardens Finance Committee.

In addition I hold a number of honorary positions as mayor with community organisations involving being their president or patron.

Page 60 None of the positions I hold are contracted in the way that an employee is neither do they have a specified place of work although inevitably a significant part of my time is spent at the Town Hall and the offices of both the Local Government Association and London Councils.

The only contract I have is an unwritten one with the people of Lewisham to serve them to the best of my ability. The activity that I undertake on behalf of both the Local Government Association and London Councils relates directly to matters which are of great concern in Lewisham and my involvement means that Lewisham’s concerns are made known and that solutions are found to the challenges we face locally. It enables me to make contact with key individuals at all levels who can influence things which impact on Lewisham and in some instances a direct financial benefit is clear. For example In 2010/11 Lewisham’s contribution to the London Boroughs Grants Scheme was £903,951. As a direct result of the work that I did as chair of that body the borough’s contribution in 2013/14 will be reduced to £303,763.

Page 61

Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 27

Priority 2

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question asked by: Mr S Mills

Member to reply: Councillor Wise

Question

The Brockley Leaseholder Forum held on 19 July organised by Regenter Brockley was attended by many leaseholders, the majority of whom voiced serious concern over the planned works to their properties by the PFI consortium, particularly given the poor standard of work carried out in 2007- 09. What is the Council’s view as to how the meeting went?

The Council is fully committed to encouraging and supporting RegenterB3 in its endeavours to set up and develop tenant and leasehold forums. The administration and management of these forums is the responsibility of RegenterB3, under the terms of the management contract.

The Council has been informed that the next Leasehold Forum meeting is scheduled to take place in January 2013. RegenterB3 is currently undertaking a number of condition surveys and other preparatory works to assist them in developing the forthcoming planned works. The surveys are due to be completed by the end of December. The findings from these

Page 62 surveys, together with full details of the planned works, will be tabled for discussion at the leasehold forum meeting in January.

The Council will ensure, through the RegenterB3 Clienting framework, that RegenterB3 deliver on their requirement to involve and consult with residents and leaseholders in both the preparation and delivery of all future planned works. The Council agreed to attend the meeting at the request of the Brockley Leaseholders. All parties at the meeting will have their own subjective views as to the efficacy of the meeting.

Page 63

Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 28

Priority 2

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question asked by: Mr B Supiya (Representative for Goldcrest, Supercuts and The Honeypot)

Member to reply: Councillor Daby

Question

What is the Council’s procedure if there is a complaint from a resident or residents, about anti-social behaviour from a shop?

When the Council receives a complaint about anti social behaviour from a shop, or any premises, be it residential or commercial, the first action taken is to contact the local police to discuss the complaint and share any information they may have or action they may have taken. Every case is different, and depending on the issues involved, it will be determined what bespoke action by the Council and its partners is required.

The Council works in partnership with the Police to deal with issues of crime and disorder and anti social behaviour. Regular consultation and dialogue takes place around problems that are raised by residents. The complainant is always advised of what we are doing in respect of the issues raised.

Page 64

Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 29

Priority 2

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question asked by: Ms J Hurst

Member to reply: Councillor Wise

Question

What does the Council do to encourage business customers (eg shops and restaurants) to recycle waste packaging?

The Council operates a Commercial Waste & Recycling Service for businesses in Lewisham. Every year all existing businesses are written to detailing the costs of each service and offering a 30% reduction on the recycling contract to encourage businesses to take up recycling.

In addition to this information is distributed with the business rates as well as being promoted on the Council’s website. Officers also visit business premises and talk to them about recycling options.

Page 65

Question

Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 30

Priority 2

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question asked by: Mr A Lyons

Member to reply: Councillor Klier

Question

Abandoned and unused structures carry many risks to the communities in which they sit. With the proposed shutting of the Telegraph HIll Generations Playclub, has the council conducted an impact assessment on the costs and potential issues involving an unused site within the centre of a park frequented by families and young children, including costs of continued maintenance, security and risk assessments of illegal usage, vandalism or trespassing? How was the assessment carried out and what are the general findings?

The Council recognises the importance of the buildings being used by the local community and is therefore keen to establish whether there is any interest among local groups in doing this, to avoid the sites remaining unused.

The level of savings the council needs to make, because of Government cuts will require significant changes to the way we organise and deliver support to

Page 66 children. Although we are proposing to close the GPCs, we are keen to explore with local organisations and groups of parents who are able to raise funds to use the sites in alternative ways.

Parents and organisations can make their views known through the drop-in sessions or through the on-line consultation at http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/getinvolved/influence/Pages/Consultations.aspx

No decision has yet been taken about the future of Generation Play Clubs. The outcome of the consultation will be reported to the Mayor before he makes a decision.

A full equalities analysis assessment will also be undertaken and this will include the impact on the local area and on local residents and uses of the club.

Page 67

Question

Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 31

Priority 2

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question asked by: Mr P Richardson

Member to reply: Councillor Best

Question

It was recently disclosed in the local press that Lewisham Council regards it as being necessary to impose £28million of cuts to Council spending at the next budget. It assumed this will mean all departments will suffer to a greater or lesser extent than others, but all are expecting some reduction.

With this being the case, there is no doubt the Library and Information Service will inevitably be called upon to make further cuts to its service to the public.

The previous round of budget cuts involved the closure of five branch libraries, all of which are now run by volunteers. Are there any proposals for further closures or subsequent extensions to the number of volunteer-run community libraries which now exist?

Page 68 Reply

The Council is having to consider options for savings in all areas of service, however there are currently no plans to close any of Lewisham’s libraries nor to develop additional community library services .

Page 69

Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 32

Priority 2

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question asked by: Mrs P Richardson

Member to reply: Councillor Best

Question

As Arts Council England has made provision of the sum of £6,000,000 for library authorities to make bids to invest in their library services, has Lewisham investigated the possiblities for its own library service? In view of the important proviso that there must be an artistically related outcome how does Lewisham's public library service see this progressing for the benefit of library users and the wider community?

The Grants for the Arts – Libraries Fund has just been launched and is a rolling fund which will run until 2015. There is no deadline for submission and ACE have made it clear that they are looking to fund significant and innovative projects, so the process is likely to be very competitive.

Lewisham is considering a number of potential approaches, but is yet to make a final decision.

Page 70 Question Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 33

Priority 2

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question asked by: Ms K Franklin

Member to reply: Councillor Klier

Question

What research is being done to fully assess current usage of the Telegraph Hill play club? I am concerned that the signing in sheets will give a very inaccurate picture, as many harassed parents and carers (myself included!) forget to sign in. I use the club at least once a week but probably only remember to sign in 10% of the time. And many people are not even aware of the signing in process, as the staff are often too busy to keep tabs on newcomers.

Staff at the Generation Play Clubs encourage all users to sign in. From 1 April 2011 to 31 March 2012, there were 1471 visits to Telegraph Hill Generation Play Club, of whom 72.9% used the Play Club 5 times or fewer in that period, which shows a pattern of occasional use.

The level of cuts required by the Government are such that we can no longer afford to run all the universal services that we used to.

Page 71 On this proposal, and as part of the public consultation we are keen to hear from organisations or groups of parents who are able to raise funds to use the sites in alternative ways.

No decision has yet been taken on this proposal and the outcomes of the public consultations will be reported to the Mayor before he makes a decision.

Page 72

Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 34

Priority 3

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question asked by: Mr A Bays

Member to reply: Councillor Wise

Question

How many Council tenants aged under 25 and in receipt of benefits have a spare bedroom in their property that could be sub let?

How much income will Lewisham lose from this category of tenant when the new rules come into operation?

The Council transferred its landlord responsibilities to Lewisham Homes. There are 19 Lewisham Homes tenants under the age of 25 and in receipt of benefits that have a spare bedroom. The tenancy agreement does not allow for subletting. However, secure tenants are permitted to take in lodgers as long as they do not sublet or part sublet any part of the property without the Council's previous written consent .

Lewisham Homes estimate a reduction in benefit of £304.35 per week.

Page 73 Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 35

Priority 3

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question asked by: Mr R Woolford (on behalf of Lewisham People Before Profit)

Member to reply: Councillor Best

Question

Can the Council confirm what monitoring and checks are in place across the care homes of vulnerable residents of all ages in the borough to ensure that the scandals and abuse exposed by the BBC, are not to be found in Lewisham?

The monitoring and review of contracts covers the following areas:

• Contract monitoring • Individual case review • Complaints • Service reviews • Regulation

Page 74 Once a residential or nursing home placement has been identified with the service user and their family as a suitable home, there is a process in place to ensure that the service user receives a good service.

All commissioned services are routinely monitored for contract compliance and acceptable performance and quality.

The aim of Lewisham’s contract monitoring is to ensure that the services delivered by care homes are delivered in line with the contract and specification and are providing care of the highest quality. Monitoring helps provide qualitative observations and data on how well services are being provided and whether desired service outcomes are being achieved.

Contract Management Tool and various Care Homes Monitoring Framework are in place to ensure consistent approach to monitoring performance. Contract monitoring takes place at least on a quarterly basis for block contracts and large spot contracts. Where the local authority has few residents, for example one or two in a care home, appropriate, and proportionate monitoring is undertaken. This can take the form of individual case review, and shared monitoring with other local authorities. Officers also carry out unannounced visits, which may be as a result of whistle blowing or any concerns raised by relatives, residents in the care homes or others.

Where there are high volumes of concern over a range of matters relating to the quality of care in a particular home an enhanced level of contract monitoring and support for a particular home will ensue. Where a service provider is not performing adequately, the Council will work closely with the provider to address the areas of concerns and produce a plan to rectify failings so that the risk of a re-occurrence is either reduced and or eliminated.

In cases where poor performance is consistent and frequent or where the breach is very serious, the Council has legal means it can pursue to adjust or terminate the contract. The details of this are set out clearly in the contract. In reaching a view about the appropriate response, the Council also has regard to the likely impact on service users. This includes striking a balance between encouraging performance improvement and identifying those circumstances where it is unlikely that the service will be successfully delivered and where service users may suffer as a result. The likelihood of re-occurrence of the issue is also considered.

The Council has at its disposal a number of notices that it can serve on a provider. They include:

• default notices • partial validations • breach or mutual breach • suspension of placements under safeguarding protocol

Page 75 During these periods enhanced monitoring will ensue which includes announced visits at weekends and night time by contract and safeguarding teams. A multi agency approach is adopted and multi agency meetings, which includes council officers, NHS, other professional, Care Quality Commission (CQC) and providers will meet to discuss and monitor action plans and remedies required to achieve continuous service improvement . More importantly, residents and relatives are kept informed of developments and their views are sought on the services being provided.

Individual case reviews

A dedicated placement review team within the Safeguarding Quality and Risk service (SQR) is responsible for reviewing the needs of service users placed into long-term residential or nursing home care. Whilst the main purpose of the review is to ensure that the service user's individual needs are being met and that the placement continues to be appropriate, a significant part of the review focuses on the quality of the care being provided under the contract.

The placement review team work closely with contract monitoring staff and any complaints or concerns resulting from reviews are immediately shared with the relevant contract monitoring officer. Prior to any contract monitoring visit, questionnaires are sent to social workers and review officers and their views are sought on the quality of the care being provided by that home.

Complaints

Complaints have an integral role in provider’s performance and is used to inform our contract monitoring process.

Contracts officers and managers in the SQR service meet to discuss and screen any complaint received in relation to a care home to ensure that any safeguarding issue are identified and investigated. Where the complaint is deemed to be a quality alert as opposed to a safeguarding issue, these are passed on to the contracts officer responsible for that home .

In addition, the council has in place a Quality Alerting System. This system is not a complaints procedure, but forms part of the quality monitoring process. Quality Alerts are designed to bridge the gap between informal communications about good experiences and concerns regarding services that vulnerable adults receive. It provides the person reporting the Alert, the opportunity to let the contract monitoring officers know how well our commissioned services are performing or whether there are any concerns about those services.

Service reviews

Service reviews seeks feedback from the service users, their advocates, if they are unable to communicate their views, and from a range of partners from adult social care and health (in particular all residential and nursing

Page 76 homes will be visited by a number of health professionals, including GPs and district nurses, who can report any concerns they may have).

Regular service improvement meetings are held to discuss any homes that are giving cause for concern. These concerns may come either from a quality or safeguarding alert. Decisions are made about what action should be taken, which may include enhanced monitoring of placements as improvements are secured, or terminating contracts depending on the seriousness of the quality or safeguarding alert.

Regulation

In addition to our own monitoring regimes, the Care Quality Commission (CQC) plays an important role as the independent regulator of health and adult social care services. This regulatory role gives CQC the power to inspect care homes.

The CQC’s role is to make sure that care provided by care homes, care services in people’s own homes, hospitals, dentists, ambulances, and elsewhere meets the Government’s standards of quality and safety. CQC inspectors visit health and adult social care services across England to check that they are meeting the standards. They make unannounced inspections of services on a regular basis and at any time in response to concerns.

Any inspection reports issued by CQC are monitored locally for any placements made in or out of borough.

Page 77

Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 36

Priority 3

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question asked by: Mr S Mills

Member to reply: Councillor Wise

Question

A Leasehold Valuation Tribunal in 2011 found in response to a class action taken forward by the Brockley Leaseholders’ Association that a proportion of housing works carried out by the PFI consortium Regenter Brockley (then known as Regenter B3) was substandard. To date, what proportion of these substandard works have been rectified? Where Equipe and/or Rydon have or will carry out remedial work as a result of subsequent inaction by Higgins, their PFI partners, who will reimburse their costs? Has the Council considered undertaking any legal action against Higgins should it refuse to pay? Given the Council's experiences of Higgins Construction as part of the Brockley PFI contract, does the Council envisage contracting out works to that company in the future?

The Council has received confirmation from RegenterB3 that follow-up works have been completed to all those properties where access has been permitted. Works to a remaining 10 properties, where access has not been allowed, are still outstanding and the Council is working closely with

Page 78 RegenterB3 to try and obtain access. A number of attempts have already been made by Higgins to contact these leaseholders, via telephone, email and door knocking and they will continue to attempt to gain access until all outstanding works have been completed. The Council will not be involved in any issues regarding payment or reimbursement of costs associated with these remedial works as it is the responsibility of Regenter B3, as the Special Purpose Vehicle, to manage their respective contractors and make payments. As a result the Council would not be required to take legal action.

The Council has in place a robust procurement and commissioning framework for the assessment and appointment of contractors to major capital works. Higgins Construction are one of the Council’s ‘Approved Suppliers’ and have as such gone through a rigorous vetting process. When bidding for any future Council works all approved suppliers are required to go through a standard tender process that applies to that contract, in accordance with the contract value. Each tender is scored and evaluated in line with the relevant evaluation criteria and any specific requirements that are set out in the tender documentation. These rules are published. For full details on the Council’s Procurement and Commissioning please visit; http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/myservices/business/tendersandcontracts

Page 79

Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 37

Priority 3

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question asked by: Mr B Supiya (Representative for Goldcrest, Supercuts and The Honeypot)

Member to reply: Councillor Daby

Question

In respect to complaints about anti-social behaviour at the Parade in Upper Brockley Road, it is apparent that no complaints were made to the police, but apparently to the Council. What action was taken by the Council to deal with the problems? What visits where made by Council Officers and or Councillors to the businesses complained of and who did they speak to, and if not, why not? Why are there no written records of any letters sent to the businesses to raise the concerns of the residents? Why have the 3 Councillors responsible for this Ward and Council officers been reluctant to have meetings with the 3 business owners and is this a reasonable way for the Council to conduct business?

The Council has worked closely with the Police, (who have largely led this action,) and other agencies in relation to the closure of three premises in Upper Brockley Road.

Page 80 The question presupposes that the Police did not receive complaints from residents of anti social behaviour regarding The Parade on Upper Brockley Road. This is incorrect. Both the Police and the Council received reports of anti social behaviour and noise nuisance from residents. The Council consulted with the Police on receipt of these reports and passed them to Police officers to inform their ongoing work to address the problems.

Contact has been made with the owners and managers of all three premises by both Police and Council officers over the course of the past two years. The majority of the contact was undertaken by the Police due to the types of concerns being raised by residents.

The Police set up and led on a problem solving plan in 2010 to address the issues of concern around three specific premises. As part of this work, the local Police Safer Neighbourhood Team undertook regular patrols, dates of which are documented along with outcomes. Records show that the certain business owners have been spoken with concerning complaints of anti social behaviour in and around their respective premises .

Records also show that a multi agency visit was made to the three particular premises in June 2010, involving the Police, UKBA, DWP and the following Council teams: licensing, trading standards, food safety, health and safety, and environmental enforcement. This was in response to reports by residents complaining of noise, drug smoking, dealing, and sale of food from within the particular premises, and general anti-social behaviour.

Additionally, there are records held of letters having being sent to the businesses complained of by the Council’s Community Safety Team. In particular, numerous letters have been written to one of the premises in particular. As a consequence, a meeting took place during December 2010 with one of the shop owners, and officers from the Council’s Community Safety Team and Police Safer Neighbourhood Team. There are records of a follow up letter having been sent out to that particular business owner, during December 2010.

In April 2011 a fresh multi agency action plan was developed to ensure a co- ordinated and effective approach to tackling the anti social behaviour along the Parade, which appeared to be escalating. As part of this work, the Police Sergeant for Brockley Ward visited all three premises to talk to the business owners about the ongoing anti social behaviour and how it could be addressed.

Shortly after this, the Royal Wedding Party took place on 29 April 2011. Based on evidence of the behaviour of the Supercuts off licence and the anti social behaviour that was associated with it, a Review of their licence was undertaken by the Licensing Committee on 13 July 2011, which resulted in the revocation of their Licence. During the same time, there are records of contact between the Council’s Community Safety Team and other premises in the Brockley Parade vicinity who were being complained about.

Page 81 When Supercuts appealed the Licensing Committee decision, the Council defended the Appeal and the Revocation was upheld at Court during a contested hearing in November 2011.

Following the revocation of the Supercuts licence, reports of anti social behaviour and noise nuisance continued to be received by the Council and Police in relation to Supercuts and two other premises. The SNT Sergeant again approached all businesses and spoke with available shop owners and managers about the problems of anti social behaviour in and around the premises.

The Police carried out ongoing patrols in the area throughout 2012. They also undertook a number of search warrants on the three premises and a number of arrests were made.

Brockley Ward Councillors were approached in September 2012 by yourself when you asked for a meeting to be convened with them and the business owners to discuss the case. At the time, there were ongoing legal proceedings around the case, undertaken by the police and so, it would have been inappropriate for Councillors to discuss the case with business owners.

Page 82

Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 38

Priority 3

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question asked by: Mr P Richardson

Member to reply: Councillor Best

Question

The library service of one of Lewisham's neighbouring boroughs, The Royal Borough of Greenwich, is operated by the private company, GLL who are not even planning on reducing existing opening hours at any branches in this era of austerity.

With this in mind, has the London Borough of Lewisham considered outsourcing its Library and Information Service which clearly has benefits to its library user population?

The Council continues to keep all options for the delivery of Library Services under review. However there are no plans to outsource the Library Service at the current time.

Page 83

Question Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 39

Priority 4

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question asked by: Mr R Woolford (on behalf of Lewisham People Before Profit)

Member to reply: Councillor Klier

Question

Can the Council please state what long term plans are in place to deal with the borough’s shortage of both primary and secondary school provision that will continue to increase each year, and the real need for both Adult Education and Special Needs provision.

Does the Council agree that the demolition of the former site of Deptford Green School was a mistake, and that this site should have been repaired and used for the long term education needs of the Borough and deal with the constant school emergencies that has seen some Lewisham Schools go back to portacabins .

Is the Council aware that in New Cross and Deptford, we have: Tidemill former school site sitting empty; Hatcham Primary, still a shell after fire last year; Deptford Green School being demolished; Charlotte Turner school also left to rot; Convoy Wharf expected primary still only a pipe dream.

Page 84 What is the Council’s view of having a schools crises and yet having this number of School options left to waste?

Despite the increasing demand for primary school places which began to outstrip supply in 2008, over the last four years Lewisham Council has ensured that in each year there have been sufficient high quality primary places to meet the needs of its residents. Lewisham has a coherent and well considered plan to meet the demand for primary school, and primary SEN provision, to the end of this decade. However, the delivery of this plan is entirely dependent on Central Government making resources available to London and other areas which need to expand school places.

Because of the slowness of the Government to respond to the rise in population, we have had to increase our places largely through the provision of "bulge" classes, some of which have used high quality prefabrication building methods which are very different in quality from the "portacabins" to which the question refers. The Government grant we have received, while insufficient, has now enabled the Council to embark on a programme of permanent expansions. Subject to the necessary funding being supplied by central Government, this programme will continue to 2016 when sufficient additional permanent places will have been established, and previously established "bulge" classrooms can be re-utilised.

There is currently a surplus of secondary school places in the borough. However, the very significant surge in primary numbers will work its way through to secondary schools by 2017. The Council is therefore actively considering its options for meeting this anticipated increased demand in conjunction with its neighbouring local authorities, given that a large number of secondary age residents travel to school in other boroughs and Lewisham's schools also cater for non-residents. Meeting the needs of increased numbers of pupils with special needs has been an important part of the local authority's planning for both primary and secondary places, and will continue to be so, and has resulted in a significant increase in the provision of SEN resource bases in mainstream schools, as well as new provision with the establishment of the Drumbeat all-age ASD school.

Because of our swift action in the area, the need to supply additional primary places in Deptford/New Cross is now forecast to be modest to the end of the decade, taking into account the expansion of Kender by a form of entry from September 2012, the new provision of a Haberdashers' Aske's Free School of two forms of entry from 2013, and the proposal to expand Sir Francis Drake in the next few years. The new primary school as part of a Convoy's Wharf development will become a reality when the scheme is delivered. Importantly it will aim to cater for the children from that development. In relation to the other specific sites referred to:

Page 85 The former Tidemill School site In order to enable the financial viability of the Deptford Town Centre regeneration programme, of which the new Tidemill School is an integral part along with the Deptford Lounge, the school's former site has always been planned for residential development.

Haberdashers' Aske's Hatcham Temple Grove site The fire at Haberdashers' primary phase site left a very damaged and dangerous building, requiring extensive survey work, followed by partial demolitions and other works to make the structure safe pending full reinstatement of the facilities. The surveys and works to make the structure safe have been completed and the Trustees plan is to commence the full reinstatement works in the new year. This will not provide additional places given that the children have been in alternative accommodation since the fire.

Deptford Green Amersham Vale site Demolition of the existing building on the Amersham Vale site has always been a requirement of the scheme to reprovide compensatory Public Open Space taken up on Fordham Park by the new school. The building was considered subsequently as a potential continuing educational site, but, in view of other options for school expansion to meet increased demand in the Deptford and New Cross locality, the case for its retention is not strong enough to outweigh the original decision to reprovide public space.

The site of the former Charlotte Turner primary school This is a Greenwich Council school which, given its location on the borough boundary, previously catered for Lewisham as well as Greenwich residents. The school was closed partly because of under-subscription. It is our understanding that Greenwich is considering the options for the site, which may include the reinstatement of primary provision should demand for places increase in the locality. We continue to work closely with Greenwich and our other neighbours on all school planning issues.

Convoy Wharf The Council continues to work with the developers on Convoys Wharf where proposals include the provision of a new Primary School. In relation to that part of the question concerning "the real need for…Adult Education", the CEL service will cover all of its direct costs from the Skills Funding Agency Grant and fees charged to learners from 2013/14. We do not anticipate any further cuts to this grant before 2014 and Adult Education in Lewisham will therefore continue to play an integral and very important part in our society as it is designed to welcome adults, many of whom may not otherwise take part in education or training. Courses provide accessible entry routes for new or returning learners and good progression routes that are used by learners. As well as acquiring new knowledge and skills which raise educational attainment and skill levels, many learners develop confidence, motivation and raised aspirations which increase employability, as well as gaining health and social benefits. Provision has been significantly improved in Deptford with the opening of the Deptford lounge for this academic year

Page 86 2012 - 2013, with the expectation that the range of courses will be further increased.

Page 87

Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 40

Priority 4

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question asked by: Mr S Mills

Member to reply: Councillor Wise

Question

How much of the Regenter Brockley consortium’s payments under the PFI contract have been deducted as a result of poor performance against Key Performance Indicators in the past three financial years and 2012/13 to date?

The Council cannot divulge the detail of any financial deductions applied to the Brockley PFI contract as this information is commercially sensitive. However the Council can confirm that, since the commencement of the Brockley PFI, it has applied a number of performance deductions to the RegenterB3 contract as and when these have been applicable.

Page 88

Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 41

Priority 4

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question asked by: Mr B Supiya (Representative for Goldcrest, Supercuts and The Honeypot)

Member to reply: Councillor Daby

Question

Why has the Council failed to respond to the complaint dated 18 th October 2012 from Mr Supiya through the Borough’s Complaints Procedures on behalf of Goldcrest Plumbers, The Honeypot and Supercuts; in relation to the failure by the Head of Crime Reduction, to respond to a request for a meeting and to seek answers to various questions regarding the disclosure of CCTV footage?

I have been advised that you sent two recorded letters to the Head of Crime Reduction and Supporting People on the 2 and 12 September 2012. We have no record of any letter sent on the 18 October 2012 as you indicate.

The officer wrote to you on 14 September informing you that she would be in touch shortly.

It was anticipated that a joint meeting with the police would be appropriate as currenty police action was then being undertaken. Following further discussions with the police, we understand that they wrote to you explaining

Page 89 that neither the Council nor the police could meet with you whilst the case was still live in the court process; accordingly, our response has been provided through the police.

All CCTV footage in respect of this case has been disclosed through the court process and is deemed evidence in the police led matter.

Page 90

Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 42

Priority 4

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question asked by: Mr P Richardson

Member to reply: Councillor Best

Question

A notice was placed on the central lift in Manor House Library last week informing people that "Age Exchange Training" was to take place at 1:00pm. Age Exchange is the charity which currently offers interim 'community library' services at their Bakehouse premises and will provide similar volunteer-run library facilities at its refurbished premises in Blackheath village once it opens to the public in late November.

The Council has been particularly proactive in supporting this charitable activity in the past with an early advance £200,000 of 'goodwill'; £30,000 worth of Assembly money and now a venue for volunteer staff training at Manor House.

Was this latest support a 'goodwill' gesture or was a fee paid for use of the facility by the Age Exchange charity?

Has similar support been made to any of the other 'community libraries' and their volunteers in the London Borough of Lewisham?

Page 91

The Library and Information Service offers training to staff and volunteers from all the anchor / host organisations that are involved in the provision of community library services in their buildings .

Age Exchange has promoted a drive to attract new staff and volunteers, and the Library and Information Service are hosting a training session for them at one of the hub libraries, to show how it operates and to introduce future partners to the many services on offer.

The Library and Information Service did not make any charge to the participants as the training is part of the Service Level Agreement in place between the Council and the anchor / host organisations .

Page 92

Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 43

Priority 5

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question asked by: Mr R Woolford

Member to reply: Councillor Daby

Question

Does the Council agree that with major new developments planned for New Cross and Deptford such as Convoy Wharf, and Surrey Canal Road, as well as increasing numbers of local residents being forced into poverty, that the demands of New Cross station are likely to increase not decrease, and that the Government has not taken into account the future demands likely to be made on New Cross Fire station.

Can the Council state what support and action it will be taking in order to support New Cross Fire Station, its crew and the needs of the New Cross Community opposed to its closure?

Like many Lewisham residents I was surprised by reports that New Cross Fire Station is under threat of closure. I will be working closely with my Labour colleagues at the GLA, London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority and local Councillors to oppose the closure of any Fire Stations in Lewisham.

Page 93 However, Like virtually every other public service, the Fire Brigade is facing the need to make savings. There is a target for these savings but the full details will not be known until at least December when the Government announces its grant to the Brigade. I will be fully engaged with the Borough Fire Commander in respect of these matters.

Page 94

Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 44

Priority 5

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question asked by: Mr S Mills

Member to reply: Councillor Wise

Question

How much in total has Lewisham Council spent on legal fees in defence of cases brought before it by Brockley leaseholders as a result of works carried out by Regenter B3 since the Council signed the contract with it in 2007.

To date, the Council has spent circa £215,000 on legal fees pertaining to the Brockley PFI Leasehold Valuation Tribunals. To ensure value for money, the Council has undertaken a series of negotiations with the firm of Solicitors representing the Council on LVT matters, and has successfully obtained reductions in both Solicitor and Barrister fees.

Page 95

Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 45

Priority 5

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question asked by: Mr B Supiya (Representative for Goldcrest, Supercuts and The Honeypot)

Member to reply: Councillor Daby

Question

What is the Council’s policy towards disclosure of CCTV footage? When the Council discloses CCTV footage to any individual or organisation, does it disclose the original master copy or a duplicate and if the latter what happens to the original copy and how long is it retained? Under what authority was the camera installed at Upper Brockley Road in February/March 2012 and what was its purpose? If that camera obtained evidence of anti-social behaviour connected to the 3 businesses, why has it not been shown to the business owners in an effort to find ways of addressing the problems? Where is that CCTV footage now and why is the Council failing to respond to repeated requests for its disclosure? Does the Council intend to disclose it, and if so, precisely when does the Council intend to do so? If the Council is not willing to disclose it, please state the grounds of that refusal?

Q1) Council’s policy towards disclosure of CCTV footage.

Page 96 Request for Information (subject access)

• Any request from an individual for the disclosure of personal data which he/she believes is recorded by virtue of the system will be directed in the first instance to the system manager or data controller.

• The principles of Sections 7 and 8, 10 and 12 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (Rights of Data Subjects and Others) shall be followed in respect of every request. Those sections are reproduced as Appendix B to these Codes.

• If the request cannot be complied with without identifying another individual, permission from all parties must be considered (in the context of the degree of privacy they could reasonably anticipate from being in that location at that time) in accordance with the requirements of the legislation.

• Any person making a request must be able to satisfactorily prove their identity and provide sufficient information to enable the data to be located. The appropriate ‘Subject Access’ request form can be obtained from the Council.

Q2) Does the Council disclose the original master copy or a duplicate and how long is it retained?

If authorised, a master copy is made, this is watermarked and this copy is provided to the interested party as required. No copies are held by the Council after the master copy has been provided.

Q3) Under what authority was the camera installed at Upper Brockley Road in February / March 2012?

Section 163 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 creates the power for local authorities to provide closed circuit television coverage of any land within their area for the purposes of crime prevention of victim welfare and it is also considered a necessary initiative by the Lewisham Community Safety Partnership towards their duty under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.

Q4) What was its purpose?

This temporary and overt mobile camera was installed on the 18 April 2012 on the corner of Lewisham Way (the smaller residential street outside the Edwardian house) and Upper Brockley Road. The purpose of this camera was to both capture anti social behaviour / criminal acts and act as a deterrent of criminal activities. RIPA approval was not required as the camera was overt and visible to anyone within the vicinity.

Page 97 The installation of the camera was indirectly related to the reports of crime and ASB involving the businesses on Upper Brockley Road. The camera was installed to gather footage of any ASB or crime taking place outside the houses in the area., This was in response to reports to the Council and the Police. The mobile camera was not directed at any of the businesses in Upper Brockley Road. The mobile camera was installed at this location because the permanent camera on Lewisham Way could not see through the trees and past the war memorial. The footage gathered was not used as it was not felt that it would add any additional weight to any case brought by either the Council nor the police. Therefore the footage was not retained and has been deleted.

Q5) Does the Council intend to disclose this footage?

The Council cannot disclose this footage as no copies were made either on behalf of any Council departments nor the Police nor any other party at the time. When reviewed this footage was not required for investigation purposes at the time by any party.

Page 98

Question Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 46

Priority 5

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question asked by: Mr P Richardson

Member to reply: Councillor Best

Question

How is Visitor Monitoring carried out at the Manor House, Lee, since there are two entrances, one of which provides access for people unable to navigate the series of steps which leads up to the main entrance of the building?

How is the data produced from the monitoring statistically related to the varied activities in the building, especially to library use? This is important bearing in mind the fact that the basement is occupied mainly by The Children's Centre and the first and second floors provide spaces for a multitude of community activities at various times of day.

Are these mitigating circumstances provided to CIPFA to allow for them to form a reliable conclusion to visitor/library issues statistical database?

Page 99

The number of visitors to the library is counted through a thermal imaging people counter placed above the “in” door into the library. Two other counters are placed above the level entrance door and the main front door. Data from these counters is not captured as part of the visits to the library and not part of the CIPFA return.

Page 100

Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 47

Priority 6

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question asked by: Mr R Woolford

Member to reply: Councillor Wise

Question

Is the Council aware that its present policy of removing thousands of residents from the current housing list will lead to a further housing crisis, with thousands more residents forced to live in overcrowded homes.

Will the removal of a Housing list number crucial for any one in housing need, mean it will be impossible for them to be accepted by other councils, Housing Associations, or even First Time Buyer schemes which insist on applicants having a waiting list number.

The Council made changes to its housing allocation scheme following a thorough review of its services and wide consultation with the public and stakeholders. The changes we have made were agreed because they represent the best chance of focusing scarce social housing resources on the highest levels of housing need,

Page 101 One of the key changes we made was only registering those households that we have a reasonable chance of helping to secure social housing because of their level of need. Households in band 4 who are no longer able to register, had extremely limited prospects of rehousing and would have waited many, many years of an offer of accommodation. Less than 1% of those registered in band 4 had any prospect of receiving an offer each year.

Households who are overcrowded maybe entitled to join the housing register and will have a preference for accommodation as follows: • Overcrowded by 1 bedroom – attracts priority banding 3 • Overcrowded by 2 bedrooms or more – attracts priority banding 2

This priority will be verified and may be awarded from the date overcrowding occurred, or in some cases within 12 months, depending on the customers circumstances. Households who have been assessed as having no preference on the housing register can have their application reconsidered if their circumstances have changed and they can reapply if their circumstances change in the future.

Changes Lewisham have made to its housing allocation scheme do not prevent households from applying for housing in other boroughs or with Housing Authorities. However, other boroughs will have their own eligibility criteria for joining their register and most HA’s no longer hold a separate housing register but are part of the local authority common housing register which creates a single shared application process and priorities for all social landlords operating in a particular area.

Households do not need to be on the housing register to be eligible for First Time Buyer schemes although additional priority may be awarded in some boroughs to applicants who are registered. This has been confirmed with First Steps and Genesishomes who operate FTB schemes.

Page 102

Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 48

Priority 6

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question asked by: Mr S Mills

Member to reply: Chair of Council

Question

To ask the chair, how many complaints have been received over the handling of questions put by members of the public to Council questions?

The Mayor last considered the Annual Complaints Report on November 14 2012. The report may be viewed at: http://councilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/documents/s18650/Annual%20compl aints%20report.pdf

In the 2011/12 reporting period, no complaints were received about the handling of questions put by members of the public at Council question time.

Page 103

Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 49

Priority 7

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question asked by: Mr S Mills

Member to reply: Councillor Wise

Question

Could the cabinet member confirm whether Lewisham Council or its PFI agents have access to warranties and guarantees from works to properties in Brockley before the signing of the PFI contract in 2007? What positive action will Lewisham take to ensure that contractors do not carry out work unnecessarily during the next round of works, levelling unfair charges on leaseholders, as was found to be the case by last year's Leasehold Valuation Tribunal.

The Council can confirm that any works carried out to properties in the PFI area prior to the commencement of the contract would have been covered by the Council’s Repairs Guarantee.

Under the terms of the PFI Project Agreement, Regenter B3 are the guarantor, to the Council, for all works undertaken to the PFI properties since 2007.

Page 104 Since the commencement of the PFI contract Regenter B3's delivery and performance is closely monitored by the Council, through their Clienting framework, to ensure that all of Regenter B3’s contractual obligations are met and to address any areas of under performance. Details of all planned works are presented to the Council, at the Client meetings, for approval prior to commencement and the Council will address any concerns or issues relating to such planned programmes accordingly.

With regard to the next phase of planned works, the external decorations programme, Rydon’s have already presented their approach to undertaking these works to the July 2012 Leasehold Forum. Rydon’s will be following this up by presenting the full external decorations programme to the January 2013 Forum. Separate to the formal Leasehold Forum, the Council is also working with Regenter B3 to identify opportunities for leaseholders to get in involved with the delivery phase of these works. These options could include inviting leaseholders to attend pre/post inspections as well as ‘snagging’ inspections and we will be discussing these options further, with leaseholders, at the January 2013 Forum.

Page 105

Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 50

Priority 7

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question asked by: Mr Woolford

Member to reply: Councillor Maslin

Question

Can the Council please confirm how many new homes (and size of residential population growth) the Council expects to be built in Lewisham over the next 20 years, and what numbers of these do the Council expect to be new families that would be in need of a Hospital Maternity ward, as growth of Population and extra residential population has not been taken into account.

Would the Council agree that Lewisham residents, should the A&E department be closed, are more likely to use Kings and St Thomas Hospitals, than to travel to an unknown hospital already struggling to cope with increased demand and cuts to staff and budgets in Woolwich.

The Lewisham Core Strategy (the principal planning document for the borough adopted in June 2011) provides for an additional 18,165 dwellings over a 15 year period from 2011 to 2026. Forecasts are not prepared for a 20 year period. The 15 year housing supply is updated each year through a

Page 106 housing trajectory and published in the Planning Service Annual Monitoring Report in December. For the period 2013/14 to 2027/28 it is forecast that 15,735 additional dwellings will be built.

According to the 2011 Census, Lewisham’s population was 275,900. Since 2001, the population increased by 27,000 representing a 11% increase. The 2011 Mid Year Population Estimates (as at 30 June 2011, released on 25th September 2012 by the Office for National Statistics) forecast Lewisham’s population will increase by 18% or an additional 47,500 people between 2006 and 2031.

The 2011 Census showed that Lewisham’s population profile has proportionally more people in age bands 0-4 and 20-44 than other parts of England. This is likely to result in demand for maternity services. However, the ONS does not make predictions.

Age-sex population pyramid for Lewisham by 5 year age bands. Comparison with London, 2011

90+ 0.3% 0.1% 85 89 0.5% 0.3% 80 84 0.9% 0.5% 75 79 1.1% 0.8% 70 74 1.3% 1.1% 65 69 1.4% 1.3% 60 64 1.8% 1.7% 55 59 2.2% 2.0% 50 54 3.0% 2.8% 45 49 3.8% 3.6% 40 44 4.0% 3.9% 35 39 4.5% 4.3% 30 34 5.1% 5.3% 25 29 4.9% 4.7% 20 24 3.9% 3.7% 15 19 3.0% 2.9% 10 14 2.8% 2.8% 5 9 2.9% 3.1% 0 4 3.8% 4.1%

6% 4% 2% 0% 2% 4% 6% Percentage

Lewisham females Lewisham males London females London males

Under the draft proposals of the Trust Special Administrator the Lewisham Hospital site would retain an Urgent Care Centre with enhanced clinical capacity with the aim of dealing with 70 to 80% of existing A&E and urgent care centre activity. This includes patients who do not need admitting to a bed and the majority of patients that “walk in”. Of course, walk-in patients may chose to travel further to access urgent/emergency care and will determine their choices based on their own personal criteria; such as ease of transport and travel times. Based on existing flows, the Council agrees that this may well be into central London hospitals.

Page 107 Patients with serious medical emergencies requiring an ambulance would be taken to the most appropriate hospital for their condition and not necessarily to the closest A&E or to the nearest A&E based on blue-light travel times. This is already standard practice in Lewisham and is based on clinical evidence of improved patient outcomes for major trauma and heart attacks when patients are taken to Kings College Hospital and for strokes when patients are taken to either Kings or to Princess Royal Hospital.

Page 108

Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 51

Priority 8

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question asked by: Mr Woolford

Member to reply: Councillor Egan

Question

In light of the huge numbers of local residents who turned out for the public meeting to save Lewisham Hospital, will the Council agree to leaflet every home in the Borough with a guide as to how residents can respond to the public consultation and give full details of the Organisers website, contact details?

It was clear from the public meeting at Lewisham Hospital on 8 November that there is overwhelming public and political support for our A&E and Maternity service. The Council has a significant role to play supporting the local campaign against the Special Administrator's draft recommendations as well as providing residents with the information they need to respond to the official consultation and to get involved with campaigns.

To date, the Council has taken the following actions:

Page 109 • The December edition of Lewisham Life , which is being delivered to every home in the borough will carry a prominent full page advert produced in association with the Save Lewisham Hospital campaign. This directs people to the website, www.savelewishamhospital.com , which is being updated with details about public meetings and events and gives guidance for residents showing how they can respond to the public consultation.

• The magazine will also feature an article that makes clear our Mayor's opposition to the draft proposals and alerts readers to the petition started by Heidi Alexander MP.

• The home page of the Council’s own website, www.lewisham.gov.uk , includes a large banner also encouraging people to visit the campaign website and to complete the consultation.

• A special edition of the Council’s enewsletter, going to over 5,000 residents, has been sent out carrying the same message.

• Posters will be going up on billboard sites across the borough advertising the campaign.

Page 110

Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 52

Priority 9

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question asked by: Mr Woolford

Member to reply: Councillor Best

Question

The Mayor stated at the public hospital meeting, that the challenge would all be about the detail.

Can the Council confirm that it will include the rise of poverty faced by local residents and the impact on the health of the poor, which is on the increase in the Borough, and the very real Health issues this raises. Will the Council also include the huge population increase in the borough, which is set to rapidly increase with Convoy Wharf and Surrey Canal Road, and the fact most residents will be young and need Maternity services, which has not been taken into account in these proposals.

I can confirm that the Council will be producing a detailed response to the Trust Special Administrator recommendations and will indeed be looking at the potential impact of these proposals on our local community needs.

Page 111

Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 53

Priority 10

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question asked by: Mr Woolford

Member to reply: Councillor Best

Question

Southwark and Greenwich residents also use Lewisham Hospital. They would also see major impact of increase in demand in their boroughs should we use our Hospital services. What will the Council be doing to work with Southwark and Greenwich to build a broader alliance?

The Council will be preparing a response to the Trust Special Administrator draft report and will certainly be talking to a full range of partners and neighbouring borough in preparation of that.

Page 112

Q Time

PUBLIC QUESTION NO. 54

Priority 11

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question asked by: Mr R Woolford

Member to reply: Deputy Mayor

Question

In light of the present Housing Matters Consultation taking place and the estimate £150,000 cost of building each new council home, and the huge cost of B&B and hostel housing, will the Council confirm it will NOT be demolishing the modern, Council owned, without a Mortgage, 3 bedroom, double glazed, former Caretakers house as part of the site clearance on the site of former Deptford Green School by Deptford Police Station SE8.

The caretaker’s house sits within the curtilage of the school site and as such without the consent of the Secretary of State cannot be used for anything other than education purposes. As part of the overall proposals to deliver a new, single site school, on the Edward Street/Fordham Park site the LA sought and received approval from the Secretary of State for the Amersham Vale site to be released for alternative use. This was key to delivering the overall proposals because there is an absolute requirement under the planning approval for the new school to provide public open space on part of the Amersham Vale site to replace that space on Fordham Park which is used for the new school’s Multi Use Games Area.

Page 113 Agenda Item 8

COUNCIL

Report Title Member Questions

Key Decision Item No.

Ward

Contributors Chief Executive (Head of Business & Committee)

Class Part 1 Date: November 28 2012

7. Questions from Members of the Council

Section C, paragraph 14 of the Constitution, provides for questions relevant to the general work or procedure of the Council to be asked by Members of the Council. Copies of the questions received and the replies to them will be circulated at the meeting.

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\3\7\7\ai00004773\$1udcw1rd.docPage 114

QUESTION No. 1

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question by Councillor Hall of the Mayor

Question

What information has the Mayor received from Government departments on the Council’s 2013/14 budget?

Government officials have consulted with local authorities and other interested parties on the principles of the new funding system, and officers have responded to these consultations as appropriate. In some cases we have reasonably firm information, most notably in housing where the new self- financing system which civil servants have been developing for four or five years means that we are no longer reliant on government grant announcements in order to make proposals about rents.

However, to date officers have not received sufficient information from civil servants to enable them to quantify all of the sources of government grant in 2013/14. Therefore, on the core general fund revenue budget we do not yet know what our main grant will be. Officers have been told that the local government finance settlement will be released after the Chancellor's autumn statement on 5 December and not later than 20 December.

Page 115

QUESTION No. 2

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question by Councillor Foxcroft of the Deputy Mayor

Question

How many Section 215 notices have the Council used. What is this as a percentage compared to other London Boroughs?

The National Planning Policy Framework states that Authorities should publish a Local Enforcement Plan to manage enforcement proactively given that enforcement is discretionary and should be proportional. The Council intends publishing a Local Enforcement Plan within the next year that sets out priorities for enforcement.

The priorities in the Local Enforcement Plan will be guided by the principle that the Council should focus its efforts on those matters that give rise to the most harm to amenity of our residents. This principle currently guides the work of the Council’s planning enforcement function.

Since the 1 st April 2005, the Council has served:126 Enforcement notices, 433 Planning Contravention Notices, 15 Breach of Condition Notices, and 24 Section 215 notices.

No data was available to compare enforcement activity with other London Boroughs.

Page 116

QUESTION No. 3

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question by Councillor Curran of the Deputy Mayor

Question

How many pubs are currently locally listed and will he publish them?

There are twelve entries on the local list that are public houses;

The Greyhound, Kirkdale The Bricklayers Arms, Dartmouth Road Lord Northbrook, Burnt Ash Road The Birds Nest, Creekside Dartmouth Arms, Dartmouth Road Fox and Hounds, Kirkdale Prince of Wales, Montpelier Row Goose on the Green (formerly Black Horse and Harrow Pub) Rushey Green Railway Telegraph, Stanstead Road The Crown, Tranquil Vale The Baring Hall Hotel, Baring Road The Catford Tavern, Station Approach

Lewisham's Local List is available to view on the Lewisham Council website on the following link http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/myservices/planning/conservation/Pages/Locally- listed-buildings.aspx It is due to be updated to include the more recently locally listed Baring Hall Hotel and the Catford Tavern. In addition, a further group of pubs are due to be considered for local listing by Mayor and Cabinet on 5 December.

Page 117

QUESTION No. 4

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question by Councillor Johnson of the Cabinet Member for Children & Young People

Question

While there is an understanding of the need to provide extra places, it is clear that many parents do not feel there has been adequate public consultation on the expansion plans for John Stainer Primary School, so will the Council, therefore, agree to embark on a much more open dialogue to consider a range of possible solutions and discuss the suggestions that have already been put forward by local people?

The consultation on the proposed expansion of John Stainer Primary School is being taken forward in line with DfE requirements which include consultation with all stakeholders. Proposals to establish additional provision on a permanent basis must comply with the provisions set out in The Education and Inspections Act 2006 (EIA 2006) and The School Organisation (Prescribed Alterations to Maintained Schools)(England) Regulations 2007. These set out the statutory process for making changes to a school, and statutory guidance on making changes to a maintained school indicates 5 stages to making a prescribed alteration to a maintained school. These are:

1) Consultation 2) Publication of a Statutory Notice 3) Representation period 4) Decision making 5) Implementation

The proposal is currently at Stage 1 - Consultation on the proposal to enlarge the school from 1 to 2 forms of entry, on the basis of the need to provide

Page 118 additional spaces. A full consultation has been carried out which has allowed parents and other stakeholders to consider and express their views. The consultation included a meeting for parents at which views were recorded. Subsequently the enlargement proposal was discussed at two PTA meetings, and some parents also convened their own meeting. The range of views expressed in these meetings, and the written responses to the consultation, are set out in the report which will be considered by the Mayor at a Mayor and Cabinet meeting and will then be subject to scrutiny.

If the Mayor approves the proposal, work to develop the design and building aspect of the proposal will be subject to separate consultation through the planning process. The first informal stages of this process have been undertaken in partnership with a group of governors, including parent governors, and the issues raised by parents have been reported to governors. At the formal stage of a planning application, the Lewisham Planning Department will consider whether a public meeting is required to allow further views to be considered following the statutory 8 week period for responses to the planning application.

Page 119

QUESTION No. 5

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question by Councillor Bonavia of the Cabinet Member for Community Services

Question

Now in its third year being solely hosted by Lewisham Council, the Blackheath Fireworks earlier this month appeared to be a great success, both among local businesses and residents as well as tens of thousands of visitors from across London and beyond. In order to assist with efforts to maintain the ability of the Council to host this event, please could the Cabinet Member for Community Services and Older People provide the following information for the Blackheath Fireworks for each of the years 2010, 2011 and 2012:

1. How many visitors attended the event?

2. What was the total cost of the event together with a breakdown of (a) fireworks and (b) ancillary costs?

3. How much was raised to defray the cost to the Council by (a) sponsorship (b) donations made online and (c) donations collected by volunteers?

Finally, what improvements, if any, might be achievable in obtaining financial support for future Blackheath Fireworks in order to further reduce the cost of the event to the Council?

There is no way of accurately counting attendance at Blackheath Fireworks as it is a non ticketed event. However we estimate from the aerial views taken by the police helicopter that 100,000 attended the event.

The event costs were as follows:

Page 120

Productions costs £85,714.85 Pyrotechnic content £30,000

The following income was secured towards the costs of the event:

Private sponsor £30,000 Public donations collected by volunteers £7,465.07 Online donations 844.00 Business donations 15,351.00 Trade income 14,148.00

Officers will continue to refine the public campaign and look for new ways to increase business and private donations. There is potential to work more closely with partners in Greenwich to increase the penetration of the campaign on the Greenwich side.

Page 121

QUESTION No. 6

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question by Councillor De Ryk of the Cabinet Member for Resources

Question

When did it become Council policy not to serve tea and coffee at tea and coffee mornings at which young children may be present?

Were there incidents relating to the serving of hot drinks prior to this decision being made, and if so, how many? Were there any severe incidents which resulted in litigation against the Council? How many litigations were pursued? Please can the Council provide the figures by year for the past five years.

We understand that other boroughs have adopted a policy of not serving hot drinks at coffee mornings where children may be present. This is not the policy in Lewisham Council.

Lewisham Council currently requires anyone using Council facilities to complete a room booking form. If children are going to be attending, the organiser is required to undertake a risk assessment detailing who will be responsible for the dispensing of hot drinks.

We do not have any recorded incidents relating to the dispensing of hot drinks.

No litigation claims have been received.

Page 122

QUESTION No. 7

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question by Councillor Fletcher of the Deputy Mayor

Question

Residents of Grovehill Court, Hildenborough Gardens, Swiftsden Way and Avondale Road frequently complain about the poor state of the roads and pavements in the area, particularly Swiftsden Way and the pavements in the Lewisham section of Avondale Road. They are told these roads are not a priority because they are not on a bus route and do not have a school or health facility. However, Grovehill Court is housing for older people, many of whom have infirmities and are not very mobile. Some have tripped over due to the uneven pavements. Others have to travel out by taxi and the taxis frequently drive around the long way in order to avoid the dreadful road surface on the upper part of Swiftsden Way. On behalf of residents I would like to ask why more priority is not given to a predominance of housing for older and/or disabled people in preparing the list of roads and pavements for resurfacing and repair?

Lewisham Council recently carried out a visual inspection of all its public highways and as a result of this data prioritised the resurfacing works programme for this financial year. Generally those roads showing the greatest deterioration and within the available budget are resurfaced. A visual highways inspection of all Lewisham’s public highways is usually carried out twice a year and where any identified intervention levels defects are identified they are subsequently made safe. The results of this help the Council prioritise its carriageway and footway improvement programme. The budget for resurfacing and footway works is for the public highway network, unfortunately, Grovehill Court and part of Hildenborough Gardens are not public highways and Avondale Road is maintained by Bromley Council.

Page 123 There are no current proposals to carry out any major resurfacing and footway works in Hildenborough Gardens and Swiftsden Way as other roads within the borough are considered a higher priority.

Page 124

QUESTION No. 8

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question by Councillor Brooks of the Cabinet Member for Children & Young People

Question

Are Lewisham's school children details held on the Capita One database or any other national database? If so are parents made fully aware that their children's details may be listed on these databases? How many staff, directorates, outside bodies and partner organisations have access to this database?

The CapitaOne software is a web based software system used by a number of Local Authorities for managing pupil and child data, with access for each LA restricted to its own data. Because each LA’s access is restricted to its own data, the CapitaOne system is not a national database. Lewisham does not use the CapitaOne software. There are many companies in addition to Capita, that provide web based software systems for storing management information on pupils (management information systems MIS)

Lewisham uses Tribal Synergy as its pupil MIS, which is managed within the Lewisham secure ICT network. Each Local Authority that uses a particular web based MIS system can only see its own pupils’ information. All access to such systems is password protected and secure.

It is common for these commercial MIS providers to work to industry, national and international IT security standards. These IT security

Page 125 standards include ISO 27001 and ISO 27005. These systems are constantly reviewed by these companies.

Parents of pupils at Lewisham schools are provided with Privacy Notices by the schools. These Privacy Notices are good practice in advising parents how their children’s data is stored and shared. These Privacy Notices, as advised by DfE, tell parents that pupil data is sent via statutory returns to the Department for Education (DfE), and is used by national government, the school and the Local Authority for monitoring and evaluation and then, where appropriate, to provide targeted support services. The DfE maintains a national pupil database using the pupil data from statutory returns. The DfE provides and regulates secure access to the national pupil database to Local Authorities. DfE, Local Authorities and schools ensure that data security and data protection are given the highest priority.

Page 126

QUESTION No. 9

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question by Councillor Griesenbeck of the Cabinet Member for Resources

Question

How much does Lewisham Council spend on Trade Union activities?

Could you please specify

- how many employees are Trade Union representative? - how many employees have been granted time off work for Trade Union related work? - how many employee-hours have been spent over the last year for Trade Union activities? - what are the average cost per hour spent on Trade Union activities and what are the total costs for all Trade Union activities performed by Council employees?

Answer

How much does Lewisham Council spend on Trade Union activities?

For the year 2012/13 the Lewisham Council budget for non-teaching union secondments is £214, 930. The Council spend on trade union facility time within schools’ settings was £125,720

- how many employees are Trade Union representative?

Lewisham Council currently has a total of 6 employees seconded as non- teaching Trade Union representatives and a total of 7 employees as teaching trade union representatives.

Page 127 - how many employees have been granted time off work for Trade Union related work?

The total facilities time equates to 4.8 Full Time Equivalent (FTE) posts. The breakdown for each union is as follows:

Unison - 3.2 FTE GMB - 1 FTE Unite - 0.6 FTE TOTAL – 4.8 FTE

We have only been able to provide details in respect of full time officials, details related to shop stewards and other similar roles are recorded and managed locally.

And 2.5 FTE teaching staff:

National Union of Teachers - 1.33 FTE NASUWT – 0.6 FTE Association of Teachers and Lecturers – 0.48 FTE National Association of Head Teachers - 0.09 FTE

In addition to the 6 employees who are trade union representatives, there are a number of employees who act as local stewards who are granted time off on an occasional basis to carry out trade union related activities for specific issues.

-how many employee-hours have been spent over the last year for Trade Union activities?

It is estimated that approximately 8760 hours were spent over the last year for official trade union secondment activities. This is based on a total of 4.8 FTE secondment posts working a 35 hour week. It is estimated that 3162 hours were spent in respect of school teaching staff.

- what are the average cost per hour spent on Trade Union activities and what are the total costs for all Trade Union activities performed by Council employees?

The total non teaching secondment budget for 2012/13 is £214,930.

On this basis it is estimated that the average cost per hour spent on trade union activities is £24.54 per hour (assuming an estimated 8760 total employee secondment hours) for support staff and £39.55 per hour for teaching staff.

Page 128

QUESTION No. 10

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question by Councillor Maines of the Cabinet Member for Community Services

Question

Were L B Greenwich asked to contribute this year to the cost of Blackheath Fireworks on 3rd November ?

What were the costs of the event and what revenue was received towards the costs ?

Greenwich Council were not approached for financial support this year as they had previously communicated that future funding was not going to be possible. However, Greenwich officers were consulted about the event and volunteers were recruited from Greenwich to support the fundraising.

The event costs were as follows:

Productions costs £85,714.85 Pyrotechnic content £30,000

The following income was secured towards the costs of the event:

Private sponsor £30,000 Public donations collected by volunteers £7,465.07 Online donations £844.00 Business donations £15,351.00 Trade income £14,148.00

Page 129

QUESTION No. 11

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question by Councillor Allison of the Cabinet Member for Community Services

Question

Did Lewisham Council approach the Royal Borough of Greenwich for match funding towards the cost of the annual fireworks this year?

Page 130

QUESTION No. 12

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question by Councillor Foreman of the Deputy Mayor

Question

How many incidents involving lorries/HGVs colliding with St Mildred’s Bridge have been reported over the past three years. Please can the Council provide a full list of accidents involving HGVs that have occurred at this location over the past three years. What is the Council doing to address apparent frequency of incidents over the past few months?

The Council has no role in collating or keeping this type of information. The Police record any accidents involving personal injury that are duly reported to them and we have routine access to that information. There have been no personal injury accidents involving bridge strikes recorded at this location in the last 3 years for which statistics are available. However bridge strike incidents often cause significant damage and traffic congestion without personal injuries.

Any vehicular contact with a bridge should be reported to the owner of the bridge, but that does not always happen. Network Rail keep statistics of bridge strike incidents that are reported to them whether or not personal injuries result from the incident. We have asked them, as the owners of this bridge, for any information that they can allow us to make public without compromising any pending legal action that may follow such an incident. Their response was that the bridge has been struck eighteen times in the past three years, seven of those incidents happened in the past year and that this bridge is the second most struck bridge in “the Kent area”.

The Council is not the highway authority for this road and is therefore not empowered to take action in this matter. It is understood that Network Rail are in discussion with TfL on this matter.

Page 131

QUESTION No. 13

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question by Councillor Ingleby of the Cabinet Member for Community Safety

Question

Will she make a statement on what is currently being done to prevent Downham Fire Station in Whitefoot Ward from closing?

Like many Lewisham residents I was surprised by reports that Downham Fire Station is under threat of closure. I will be working closely with my Labour colleagues at the GLA, London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority and local Councillors to oppose the closure of any Fire Stations in Lewisham.

However, like virtually every other public service, the Fire Brigade is facing the need to make savings. There is a target for these savings but the full details will not be known until at least December when the Government announces its grant to the Brigade.

At this time no decisions about any possible fire station closures, including Downham, have yet been taken albeit Officers are looking at a range of options to meet the possible efficiencies that the savings target may require. Before any decisions are made there will be a full public consultation to seek the views and opinions of the local community.

I will be fully engaged with the Borough Fire Commander in respect of these matters.

Page 132

QUESTION No. 14

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question by Councillor Ibitson of the Deputy Mayor

Question

Please give an update on progress on the development at Bell Green, and allocation of associated s106 money?

The site has a significant history of planning decisions over the last 15 years. The development area has been considered as 3 sites.

• Phase I: Developed as the Sava Centre (now the Sainsbury’s Superstore) and linear park. • Phase II: Site located to the north of the Sainsbury's site behind the gasholders; • Phase III - Smaller road frontage site located to the west of Sainsbury's and south of gas holders at the junction of Bell Green and Southend Lane

Phase 2 (Owned by National Grid, being developed by Kier Property Development) Phase 2 has planning permission for a mixed use retail and industrial development.

The redevelopment of the western section of the site comprises the construction of 15,133 sq.m gross non-food retail units including a DIY store with associated garden centre (Use Class A1) and drive-thru restaurant 316sq.m (Use Class A3), together with the use of the Livesey Memorial Hall as a social club (Use Class D2), associated landscaping, highway improvements, provisions of refuse storage area 40 bicycle and 598 car parking spaces.

Page 133

The redevelopment of the eastern section of the site (adjacent to Waterlink Way) comprises 11 double height (11.6m) warehouse units for business, general industrial, storage and distribution (including trade counters) and ancillary office accommodation with an overall gross internal floor area of 5,054 sqm in addition to associated access and 55 car parking spaces and soft landscaping.

Current Status Construction of the retail units has commenced, potential occupiers for each of the units have been identified. It is anticipated that the units will be occupied by Autumn 2013.

The s106 agreement attached to this development requires the industrial units to be constructed within 18 months of the first occupation of the retail units.

Phase 3 (Leaseholder Circle Anglia and Freeholder National Grid) Planning permission exists for the erection of 156 residential units and 1,247 sq. m of retail floorspace (A1 and /or A3) with associated vehicular/ pedestrian access, service areas, car parking and landscaping. The development is 100% affordable housing.

Current Status Development is now largely complete and the residential units are starting to be occupied. The commercial units are not yet occupied but are being actively marketed.

Landscaping of the site is currently being implemented.

Highways Issues There are a number of highway improvement works associated with the development.

The planning obligations in respect of phases 2 and 3 provide contributions from the developer to pay for enhanced pedestrian and cyclist safety facilities on roads, paths and pedestrian crossings surrounding the sites. These works include improvements to the Worsley Bridge junction, new controlled crossings across Southend Lane and Worsley Bridge Road, improved crossing facilities in Southend Lane and all the junction arms as part of the Kangley Bridge Road junction improvements, SCOOT (Split Cycle and Offset Optimization Technique) linking of signals, cycle and pedestrian accessibility works within 5 minutes walk of the gyratory, improvements to the crossing and bus shelter in Bell Green, linking signals in the gyratory, widening of the southern footway under the Southend Lane railway bridge from 900mm to 1200mm, new controlled crossing in Stanton Way, new signing and removal of clutter in the gyratory area. A Project Initiation Document has been approved for these works and the project is ongoing.

Page 134

The proposals include widening of Bell Green to take place along the Western boundary of the phase Ill application site. This will allow a full two lanes to proceed Southbound through the link between Perry Hill and Southend Lane. It will also allow a two - lane left turn exit to operate from the West - East spine road on the Bell Green site. The improvement will reduce the Southbound traffic queues in Perry Hill caused by the inability of the two lane queue at the traffic signal controlled junction of Perry Hill and Perry Vale to clear efficiently into the offset 1.5 lanes that are currently available in Bell Green. The improvement will also provide more effective bus performance when entering and leaving the site and the reduced level of congestion in Bell Green itself should enhance all bus operations in Bell Green. These highway works have commenced.

S106 Obligations The original and subsequent planning approvals are subject to the following s106 obligations:

• £1.034 million pursuant to clause 10 of the 1993 agreement for the purpose of widening Southend Lane Bridge. The 1993 agreement is modified so that the council no longer has to spend this money in that way. Nor does it to have to continue to account for interest which may accrue with this sum. The council is instead entitled to use the £1.034 million towards undertaking accessibility works in the vicinity of the site. The money has been paid, a Project Initiation Document agreed, and the project is ongoing as set out above ; • Payment of £853,600 towards the accessibility works. Not yet received ; • Completion by the developer of works to (a) Widen Bell Green (b) The Spine Road (c) Landscape highway land on the western side of Bell Green; • Payment of £45,000 to the council towards safety features in Perry Rise. This must be paid upon commencement of the stage three works. Not yet received ; • Provide a pedestrian ‘green’ link from Waterlink Way along the southern boundary of Phase II and through the centre of the Phase III site to provide access onto Bell Green; • Provision of a travel plan; • Payment of £200,000 towards employment and training . Payment received and spent ; • Use of local labour; • Provision of public art, subject to a cost-ceiling of £50,000. This has been provided on the Phase III site;

Page 135 • Community use of Livesey Memorial Hall; • Use of parking spaces at Phase 1 by persons using the Livesey Memorial Hall; • Payment of £100,000 towards improvements in Forest Hill and Sydenham Town Centres. This money has been paid but not yet spent, although identified to be part of the Portas Pilot Scheme ; • Prior to phase 2 works commencing, the owner must provide 10% renewable energy technologies as part of the development, subject to a cost ceiling at £300,000 where the technologies cost less than that, the resulting saving is payable to the council for use in promoting renewable energy technology. This has been provided on Phase III of the development; • Payment of £40,000 towards ground contamination monitoring. Payment received and spent ; • Payment of £70,000 towards CCTV camera provision and improvements. This must be paid no later than 28 days prior to the commencement of the stage 3 works. Not yet paid ; • Payment of £10,000 towards Riverview Walk improvements. Not yet paid ; • Installation of CCTV throughout the site and along the Riverview Walk; • Payment of £10,000 towards monitoring officer costs as a contribution towards the councils cost of employing a monitoring officer. Received; • All of the employment floor space on Phase II must be delivered within 18 months of the first occupation of the Phase II retail units; • (10%) of the Affordable Housing Units shall be designed to be capable of adaption to the Wheelchair Unit Site Brief

Page 136

QUESTION No. 15

Priority 2

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question by Councillor Johnson of the Deputy Mayor

Question

While I appreciate that the standards governing the specifications for speed humps have changed since the late 80s/early 90s, when the Wickham Road speed humps were first installed, residents have complained that the new humps are failing to calm the traffic and that vehicles are now consistently going above the 20mph limit. Will the Council immediately review the traffic calming measures in Wickham Road and investigate the options for ensuring a safe 20mph speed limit in this road?

At the present time there are no plans to review the traffic calming measures in Wickham Road as they are considered adequate to enforce the local 20mph zone.

Current thinking amongst transport professionals is that sinusoidal speed humps control traffic speeds to the same degree as the conventional round topped humps whilst producing benefits for cyclists and ambulance passengers. Further information on sinusoidal humps can be found at the following two web addresses: http://www.ukroads.org/webfiles/TAL%209-98%20Sinusoidal%20- %20H%20and%20S%20road%20humps.pdf http://www.sustrans.org.uk/assets/files/guidelines/traffic%20calming.pd f

Page 137

QUESTION No. 16

Priority 2

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question by Councillor De Ryk of the Cabinet Member for Customer Services

Question

What measures have been taken to ensure that all consultation letters on “Housing Matters” are correctly addressed to and received by council and social housing tenants? Have the Council received any complaints about non-receipt of consultation letters? If so, could the Council please detail how many complaints have been received?

A clerical error resulted in one of the three newsletters issued as part of the Housing Matters programme being incorrectly addressed. The procedure for sharing address information with the distributor has subsequently been reviewed and later publications have been properly addressed.

The independent tenant advisor, TPAS, whose publication was incorrectly addressed in error, apologised to all tenants in their subsequent newsletter. Lewisham Homes contacted tenants to explain what had happened, put posters on all notice boards on its estates, and placed an apology on its website.

The Council received no formal complaints but did receive one email regarding the matter. Lewisham Homes received no formal complaints but also received one email. TPAS received no complaints but logged 35 calls from residents to say that the mail was incorrectly addressed.

Page 138

QUESTION No. 17

Priority 2

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question by Councillor Fletcher of the Cabinet Member for Community Services

Question

The grant covering the running costs of Wesley Halls is under threat. What would happen to the many different groups, classes, churches and community meetings which take place at the Halls and are attended by hundreds of Downham residents if they were to be closed as a result of losing the grant?

The majority of community centres in the borough operate without grant subsidy and cover their centre management costs through earned income. The main grants subsidy for community centres is currently under review with a view to ceasing the subsidy of centre management costs and focusing resources on community development activity.

Officers will be working with Wesley Halls Community Association to review their options should a decision to cease their grant aid be taken. If the Community Association decided they were no longer able to manage Wesley Halls it would revert to the Council as the owners of the building. Officers would then make an assessment of the viability of the centre and the impact on users.

Page 139

QUESTION No. 18

Priority 2

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question by Councillor Brooks of the Cabinet Member for Resources

Question

How many PFI initiatives for which Lewisham Council is currently making repayments are there in Lewisham? Please can the Council provide a full list of these projects together with the repayment schedule for each scheme. Has the Council defaulted on any repayments? If so, can the Council please provide details and list any financial penalty incurred.

The Council has a total of eight PFI contracts. These are for the Downham Lifestyles Centre, Brockley area housing, Street Lighting and then five separate PFI contracts for the building and subsequent running of 10 schools.

The details of the Council's PFI contracts and commitments are set out on pages 76-78 of the council's accounts, which were published in September 2012 and are available on the finance pages of the council's website.

The Council has not defaulted on any of its repayments for PFI schemes.

Page 140

QUESTION No. 19

Priority 2

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question by Councillor Maines of the Cabinet Member for Customer Services

Question

What progress has been made on the ‘Switch Together’ scheme? Will Lewisham be implementing this?

The ‘Switch Together’ scheme is a collective energy purchasing initiative launched at the 2012 Labour Party Annual Conference. The scheme aims to help households take advantage of lower energy prices by switching supplier as part of a collective purchasing exercise managed by Oldham Council that was scheduled to take place on 26 November 2012.

In October the Department of Energy and Climate Change launched a new funding stream for local authorities with up to £5m available nationally to support collective switching initiatives.

Lewisham Council is working with London Councils and the Greater London Authority on the development of a bid which if successful will run a London- based collective switching exercise by the end of March.

As part of its wider energy advice services for residents Lewisham Council already encourages people to take advantage of cheaper tariffs by switching supplier on an individual basis. The Council closely monitor the ‘Switch Together’ scheme and the work planned by London Councils. On the 20 th November 2012 the Department of Energy and Climate Chance announced proposals to simplify tariff structures across the industry, intended to make it easier for individuals to access the best deal for their circumstances without necessarily participating in a collective purchasing exercise.

Page 141

QUESTION No. 20

Priority 2

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question by Councillor Foreman of the Deputy Mayor

Question

How long has Verdant Lane been a temporary diversion route for HGVs? When was it first designated a temporary diversion route and what consultation was undertaken with local residents about this? When will Verdant Lane cease to be a temporary diversion route?

Verdant Lane has been a permanent diversion route for Eastbound over height vehicles to avoid collisions with the bridge at St. Mildred’s Road since the 16 th September 1991 although the way in which it has been signed has changed a number of times since then. It is believed that although it was not formally an over height vehicle diversion route before that time but it always has unofficially been used for that purpose. It has never been a “temporary” diversion route for over height vehicles.

Given the reason for the Traffic Management Order, consultation with residents was not considered appropriate.

Page 142

QUESTION No. 21

Priority 2

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question by Councillor Ibitson of the Deputy Mayor

Question

Please advise when residents of Stoms Path, SE6 can expect to have their streetlighting replaced?

There have been problems regarding the last column to be changed in Stoms Path, but I can confirm that Skanska are planning to replace the final lighting column on the 4 th December 2012.

Page 143

QUESTION No. 22

Priority 3

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question by Councillor Johnson of the Deputy Mayor

Question

Given that Gloucester City Council and other local authorities are successfully using Section 215 notices to take enforcement action against overgrown or very unsightly front gardens, will the Cabinet Member agree to review the Council's policy on the use of Section 215 notices as defined by the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, to determine whether such notices could be applied more readily in similar problem cases in Lewisham?

The power to issue a section 215 notice is prescribed by the Act and states that;

“if it appears to the Local Planning Authority that the amenity of a part of their area, or of an adjoining area is adversely affected by the condition of land in their area , they may serve on the owner and occupier of the land a notice under this section”.

Therefore, if a garden does adversely affect the amenity of an area, the Council can take action using a section 215 notice.

The definition of what constitutes an “adverse affect” will be contained within the Local Enforcement Plan which will be published in the next year. This will be an opportunity for Councillors to set the priorities for the Council’s Planning enforcement service in relation to the resources available.

In the interim, the work of the planning enforcement team is focussed on those matters that give rise to significant harm to amenity. Untidy front

Page 144 gardens and properties that cause significant harm will be subject to action through a section 215 notice.

Page 145

QUESTION No. 23

Priority 3

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question by Councillor De Ryk of the Cabinet Member for Customer Services

Question

How many ash trees are there in the Borough of Lewisham? Have there been any confirmed or suspected reports of ash dieback (Chalara fraxinea) in the borough? As the outbreak has now reached as near as Kent, what are the Council doing to prevent trees in the borough becoming infected? Are the tree department in contact with Defra about training officers to spot the signs of infection? If the infection spreads as feared, it could reportedly be as serious as the disastrous Dutch Elm outbreak in the 1970s - and could result in the loss of all the ash trees in Lewisham. As the situation is potentially so serious, should you consider organising a Tree Summit for residents to train them on how to spot any tell-tale signs of infected Ash trees?

We have 120 Ash trees on the street, approximately 740 on housing estate land and 96 in the grounds of our cemeteries. There are many more in our parks and open spaces with the majority of them grouped together in woodland areas such as the Ash plantation at Beckenham Place Park.

To date (16thNov ) there have been 3 suspected cases reported . In two of the cases the disease found was very clearly not Ash dieback and so no further action was necessary . The third case is still under investigation and if necessary will be referred to The Forestry Commission for final diagnosis.

Unfortunately there is little that can be done to prevent our trees becoming infected other than to remain vigilant for the signs and to follow the advice issued by the Forestry Commission and Defra should we have a confirmed outbreak in the borough.

The Council’s tree officers are fully aware of the signs of the disease and have been circulating advisory information to partners organisations. Information has also been provided to Call Point staff so that residents can be

Page 146 advised of what to do should they suspect they have found evidence of the disease.

Page 147

QUESTION No. 24

Priority 3

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question by Councillor Fletcher of the Cabinet Member for Resources

Question

A new report by the Pensions Institute describes local authority pension schemes in London as a "ticking timebomb" and says that generally they are less able to meet their liabilities than schemes elsewhere in the country and those in the private sector. It says that trustees have been delaying recovery plans in order to save cash. What degree of confidence does the Cabinet Member for Resources have that Lewisham's pension scheme will be able to meet its liabilities going forward?

The most recent actuarial valuation was as at 31 March 2010, in which the Fund’s assets were valued at £715m, sufficient to meet 75.4% of the liabilities (i.e. the present value of promised retirement benefits) accrued up to that date.

This resulted in the Actuary assessing the employers’ contribution rate to provide for future pensions entitlements (the Future Service Rate) to be 20.5% of employees' pay with effect from 1 st April 2011, and annual increases of 0.5% for the subsequent 2 years. These annual increases have been implemented.

Trustees and officers have consistently implemented the actuary's professional recommendations in full, and hence have not delayed recovery plans in the way that the Pensions Institute report suggests that some funds may have done.

The current investment climate is of course very difficult. It has been for some years and may continue to be so for some years into the future. Clearly this creates pressures on the pension fund, and the investment strategy has been adjusted accordingly.

Page 148

QUESTION No. 25

Priority 3

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question by Councillor Brooks of the Cabinet Member for Resources

Question

What is the total amount of repayments that the Council is currently making to all PFI schemes each year. Please can the Council provide the repayments made by year for the last five years. Please can the Council also list the projected repayment schedule for the next ten years by year.

Total payments in 2012/13 were £44.3m

For the period 2013/14 to 2016/17 they are projected to be £202.9m

For the period 2017/18 to 2021/2022 they are projected to be £270.3m

The forward figures are based on an assumed future inflation rate of 2.5%

Payments in the five years preceding 2012/13 (i.e. 2007/08 to 2011/12) were, in total £117.8m:

2007/08 £9.4m 2008/09 £17.2m 2009/10 £25.9m 2010/11 £30.4m 2011/12 £34.9m

The payments over the next nine years are as follows;

2013/14 £49.3m 2014/15 £50.3m 2015/16 £51.2m

Page 149 2016/17 £52.1m 2017/18 £52.7m 2018/19 £53.3m 2019/20 £54.0m 2020/21 £54.8m 2021/22 £55.5m

The cost of meeting these future liabilities has been fully reflected in the council's long-term financial planning, and the PFI contracts have delivered significant investment in schools and other facilities at a time when no other funding source was available to finance such investment.

Page 150

QUESTION No. 26

Priority 3

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question by Councillor Maines of the Cabinet Member for Customer Services

Question

How many Lewisham residents (excluding Council officers) attended the Council’s ‘Nappy Natter’ events on 26 October and 27 October? What is the budget for this campaign? What has been the budget over the past five years for these events?

Six people attended the event on the 26th October and 3 people attended on 27th October.

The campaign budget amounts to £7,000 excluding officer time. The budget for the events over the past five years has just been room hire if required to pay. This has amounted to approximately £600 per year.

Page 151

QUESTION No. 27

Priority 3

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question by Councillor Foreman of the Cabinet Member for Customer Services

Question

How many (a) prosecutions and (b) fixed penalty notices have been issued for fly tipping and illegal rubbish dumping over the past two years? What is the Council's estimate of the overall cost of clearing fly tipping and illegal rubbish dumping over this period?

There have been 422 FPN’s served over the last two years for flytipping and illegal rubbish dumping. 172 Prosecutions for the same.

The Council has spent approx £1,056,406 on disposing of fly tipped waste for the period April 2010 – March 2012.

Page 152

QUESTION No. 28

Priority 4

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question by Councillor De Ryk of the Deputy Mayor

Question

Hackney Council have recently introduced a ‘play streets’ scheme. Are there any plans for a similar scheme in Lewisham?

Playstreets is a relatively new project which allows residents to close quiet streets for a short period of time each week, to enable children to play safely near their homes. The concept is new to London, and Hackney Council are currently running the project for a 12 month trial period from September 2012 - August 2013. In Lewisham, we do not currently offer Playstreets, but we have been in contact with officers in Hackney, and we are awaiting with interest the outcome of their 12 month trial.

Page 153

QUESTION No. 29

Priority 4

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question by Councillor Fletcher of the Cabinet Member for Children & Young People

Question

Lewisham Council recently signed up to Barnardo's "Cut them free" campaign. What action has the Council taken in support of this commitment?

Whenever a young person is assessed as being at risk of sexual exploitation, we hold strategy meetings. The police, Childrens Social Care, schools and health attend these meetings and actions are taken as a result to safeguard the young person.

Barnados Cut them Free Campaign has found that some young people who are sexually exploited think that they are in genuine relationships and resist professional intervention. Others are intimidated from speaking out. We have plans in place for one to one work with the young person to build trust and confidence so that they feel able to access help.

We have developed a Child Sexual Exploitation Strategy to strengthen even further the partnership response to child sexual exploitation. We are building up a profile of sexual exploitation in Lewisham so that the police can target perpetrators and locations of grooming more effectively. The police have the power to take out a Sexual Offence Prevention Order that bars a suspect adult from having contact with the young person. We are working with schools and colleges to raise awareness about sexual exploitation so that more young people know the difference between exploitative and healthy relationships. We are targeting young people who have been exploited to help them realise

Page 154 they are caught up in a damaging relationship and they are offered sexual health screening and other services.

We are rolling out a training programme so that professionals and families can work together to address sexual exploitation. This training will include foster carers and residential unit staff, as we know that children in residential care may be particularly vulnerable to child sexual exploitation.

We are working with the London Metropolitan Police and other local authorities to develop protocols to improve partnership working across boroughs to respond to child sexual exploitation. This is important for vulnerable Lewisham children who attend schools in other boroughs, as well as out of borough children who attend Lewisham schools.

Page 155

QUESTION No. 30

Priority 4

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question by Councillor Brooks of the Mayor

Question

Mayor and Cabinet on 14 November will be looking to utilise an Article 4 direction over a local public house. At Council in June, all members of the majority group rejected an opposition group amendment which called for these powers to be used to tackle unpopular Gambling Premises and Betting Shops that contribute to crime and disorder in the borough. Please can the Mayor outline why he is not prepared to use Article 4 to tackle unpopular betting shops?

Most uses of land in planning terms are categorised as either A, B, C or D uses. This classification is called the “Use Classes Order” and changes of use within a particular category do not require planning permission. In addition to this certain changes between uses are what is called “permitted development” i.e. specifically does not require planning permission.

Betting shops are within use class A2 which includes uses such as estate agents, banks, building societies and employment agencies. Permitted development rights exist to change to A2 (i.e. any of the uses within the class) from A3 (restaurant), A4 (drinking establishment) and A5 (hot food takeaway).

The use of Article 4 to protect pubs is very different to the issue of preventing betting offices. Article 4 can be used to protect drinking establishments as these fall within a single use class and permitted development rights to change to other uses can be removed.

Page 156

In the case of betting shops, prevention is impossible using Article 4 as they fall within a use class that includes a number of other uses.

In the Summer the Government consulted on possible changes to the Use Classes Order. As part of this, the Council ensured that views were put forward to suggest that betting offices became a specific use class similar to pubs. We are currently awaiting the Governments response to this.

Page 157

QUESTION No. 31

Priority 4

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question by Councillor Maines of the Cabinet Member for Customer Services

Question

Has the Council investigated installing "fox proof " litter bins?

Cleansing have trialled a number of litter bins in the past and have found that open topped litter bins are used more frequently by residents and the general public than closed topped ones and they reduce the amount of litter deposited on the streets.

Closed topped litter bins, which restrict fox access to the rubbish in the bin are 4 to 5 times more expensive than the open topped ones. We believe that it is more cost effective to improve the management of waste left out in bags on streets overnight. We will shortly be producing a new Refuse and Recycling Service Standard that aims to ensure more waste is presented in closed containers.

Page 158

QUESTION No. 32

Priority 4

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question by Councillor Johnson of the Cabinet Member for Children & Young People

Question

While recognising that the actual provision of breakfast clubs is the responsibility of individual schools, has the Cabinet Member given more thought to my request that the Council collates information on the provision of breakfast clubs across Lewisham schools?

Following your previous question, I requested that a survey was carried out of schools in Lewisham. I can report there are 57 schools that provide access to a breakfast club.

They are:

• Abbey Manor College • Adamsrill • All Saints • Ashmead • Athelney • Baring • Beecroft Garden • Brindishe Green • Childeric • Christ Church • Clyde • Conisborough College • Coopers Lane • Dalmain

Page 159 • Deptford Green • Deptford Park • Downderry • Edmund Waller • Elfrida • Eliot Bank • Fairlawn • Gordonbrock • Grinling Gibbons • Haseltine • Holbeach • Holy Trinity • Horniman • John Ball • John Stainer • Kelvin Grove • Kender • Kilmorie • Launcelot • Lee Manor • Lucas Vale • Marvels Lane • Perrymount • Prendergast Vale College • Rangefield • Rathfern • Rushey Green School • Sir Francis Drake • St Augustine’s • St Bartholomew’s • St John Baptist • St Joseph’s • St Mary’s • St Mary Magdalen • St Michael’s • St Saviour’s • St William of York • St Winifred’s • Stillness • Sydenham • Tidemill Academy • Torridon Infants • Torridon Junior

Page 160

QUESTION No. 33

Priority 5

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question by Councillor Brooks of the Cabinet Member for Customer Services

Question

My Council Question on 28 June 2012 revealed that last year 20 households with dependant children were housed in bed and breakfast accommodation for six weeks or longer over the Christmas period. Will the Cabinet Member assure Council that this year no Lewisham families with dependant children will be housed in bed and breakfast accommodation over the Christmas period, who have been resident there for six weeks or longer?

The Council makes every effort to ensure that there are no families with children or pregnant women in bed & breakfast for longer than 6 weeks at all times, including over the Christmas period. It is a key priority for the Council to do this.

The Council only uses bed & breakfast accommodation when it has no alternative, because it recognises that this is not the best option for families. We make strenuous efforts, if we do need to use it, to move households on as quickly as possible. We have made progress recently in reducing the number of placements that exceed 6 weeks. At the end of June 2012 we had no families with children in shared bed & breakfast hotels or other shared nightly paid accommodation. Where we are unable to move households into other temporary accommodation within 6 weeks the council tries to move families to emergency nightly paid accommodation which is self contained and therefore presents a better option for those families.

There is however significant pressure on temporary accommodation in London and many boroughs, including Lewisham’s near neighbours, have

Page 161 experienced large increases in the use of bed & breakfast accommodation and have many families who remain there beyond six weeks. Homelessness appears to be increasing across London and procurement options for other temporary accommodation and to prevent homelessness are more difficult in the existing housing market, with the impacts of welfare reform and economic pressures.

Lewisham has largely contained numbers through projects designed to reduce the need for its use. These are aimed at speeding up homelessness assessments and identifying alternative temporary accommodation options. We will continue efforts to reduce or eliminate the need for bed & breakfast in the run up to Christmas and beyond.

Page 162

QUESTION No. 34

Priority 5

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question by Councillor Maines of the Cabinet Member for Customer Services

Question

The Council received around £75,000 from Recycle for London to address its poor recycling rates. Please can the Council detail what it plans to spend this money on.

Although Lewisham’s recycling figures may be considered low in comparison to other boroughs, the figures do not show the different services authorities have: authorities with high recycling rates tend to collect organic waste and therefore like for like comparisons are not taking place. If you look at tonnages for dry recycling collected, Lewisham actually collects more for recycling than some other London boroughs. Further, Lewisham has one of the lowest landfill rates in England – significant when landfill sites are rapidly becoming full and you consider their impact on the environment.

The Council is keen to encourage residents to recycle. It has made it easy to recycle with the new recycling contract adding more materials which are collected in one container. The Council has also received funding for a comprehensive communications campaign. The Recycle for London programme has funded the following activities:

• Eight page booklet entitled ‘ Your new and improved recycling changes’ – design, print and distribution to 80,000 properties; • Recycling Bin Sticker – design, print and application to all kerbside recycling bins; • Truck Livery – design, print for 10 recycling vehicles; • Recycling Contamination Tags – design, print run of 5,000;

Page 163 • Recycling Roadshow Pop Up Banners – 8 designed, printed and purchased for use at community events, hubs; • JCDecaux Sites - print & production of 6 designs ( two runs); • ‘One Year On 'Recycling Reminder/Thank you' – this will either be a leaflet or a feature in Lewisham Life; • Eight page Service Standards for Refuse & Recycling booklet – design, print and distribution.

Page 164

QUESTION No. 35

Priority 5

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question by Councillor Johnson of the Cabinet Member for Customer Services

Question

Will the Council undertake to replace all street trees lost to Ash Tree Disease on a one for one basis with another native species of tree?

We have 120 Ash street trees that are susceptible to this disease. This is just over 1% of the 11,400 street trees in the borough.

Current advice is that mature trees that are found to be infected with this disease should not be felled immediately as they take much longer to die than young trees and consequently remain valuable to wildlife.

Leaving them in situ will also help the relevant agencies learn more about genetic strains that might be resistant to the disease.

This also means that the loss of the trees will at least be gradual giving us the opportunity replace them over time should sufficient resources be available.

Page 165

QUESTION No. 36

Priority 6

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question by Councillor Brooks of the Cabinet Member for Customer Services

Question

How many households with dependant children are currently housed in bed and breakfast accommodation by Lewisham Council?

On the 14 th November 2012 Lewisham had 50 households placed in emergency, nightly paid accommodation as part of its duties to homeless households. Of these 25 households with dependant children were accommodated in what is traditionally known as Bed and Breakfast. These placements were made to respond to urgent homelessness whilst cases were investigated and other temporary accommodation was sought.

It is important to note that the Bed and Breakfast population is very fluid and changes daily as families are moved into more stable arrangements as soon as possible.

The number of households with dependent children who were housed in emergency nightly paid accommodation has fallen from 80 in April 2011 to 50 on 14 th November 2012.

The latest comparative performance available is for 30 th June 2012 at which point Lewisham had 15 households with dependant children in emergency nightly paid accommodation, below the average of 19 for Inner London.

Authority B B Hammersmith_and_Fulham 53 Wandsworth 51 Tower_Hamlets 41 Greenwich 25 Lambeth 16

Page 166 Lewisham 15 Southwark 4 Camden 0 Hackney 0 Islington 0

Kensington and Chelsea 0

(Source: P1e returns submitted to CLG )

A number of London Boroughs have not published data for comparison purposes.

Page 167

QUESTION No. 37

Priority 6

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question by Councillor Maines of the Cabinet Member for Resources

Question

Following the announcement that Birmingham City Council faces a £757m bill to settle equal pay claims, have any equal pay claims been made against the London Borough of Lewisham? If so, please can the Council detail how many and what funds have been allocated to deal with potential claims?

The Council has in recent years received two equal pay claims, one of these claims was not successful and the other claim is pending.

None of these claims related to areas or raised issues where groups of employees could be impacted on in the same way as the Birmingham City Council claims. The Council also undertook extensive evaluation exercises as part of establishing a single status framework across the workforce with the trade unions. The Council has therefore not earmarked funds specifically for such claims.

Page 168

QUESTION No. 38

Priority 7

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question by Councillor Brooks of the Cabinet Member for Customer Services

Question

The answer to my Council Question (no 67) on the meeting of 26 September 2012 stated that the Council were unable to list the written warnings and on the spot fines by ward. Will the Cabinet Member please confirm that attachment (appendix A) is an accurate example of a fixed penalty notice, where it is necessary to enter the name and address of the offender? Please can the Cabinet Member explain why it is not, therefore, possible to list the 7 warnings/fines that were issued to dog owners by ward?

I can confirm that the Fixed Penalty Notice attachment is an accurate example of an FPN used and supplied by the Enforcement team

At the time of the original question the information was not available due to the required computer software upgrade. This information is now available as below.

1. 2 for Perry Vale

2. 1 for Telegraph Hill

3. 1 for Evelyn

4. 1 for Sydenham

5. 1 for Blackheath

6. 1 for Rushey Green

Page 169

QUESTION No. 39

Priority 8

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question by Councillor Brooks of the Cabinet Member for Community Services

Question

How much does the council pay care homes for domiciliary and residential care? Please can the Council Provide a list by care home and provider. Is there a variation in payments made to in-borough and out-of-borough care homes?

There are 16 Providers on the Lewisham Domiciliary Care Framework, who provide personal and / or domestic care for people who are Fair Access to Care Services (FACS) eligible. Their rates vary between £11.84 and £14.76 per hour.

Residential care homes in-borough rates are between £464.60 and £521.27 per week. Elderly Mentally Ill (EMI) rates are between £464.60 and £555.25 per week.

Payments to out-of-borough homes are negotiated on an individual basis, dependent on the client category, but are based on the host local authority's rate.

Page 170

QUESTION No. 40

Priority 9

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question by Councillor Brooks of the Cabinet Member for Children & Young People

Question

How many members of staff are employed by the Teenage Pregnancy Team? What are the teams objectives and how is successful performance measured? Please can the Council outline to remit of this team and list all activities/events organised by the team over the past year.

There are 2 members of staff in the Teenage Pregnancy Team, both employed by Lewisham Council: the Teenage Pregnancy Programme Manager, the borough’s strategic lead of this agenda and a front-line worker. Support to reduce teenage pregnancy and support young parents is delivered across the Children’s Partnership through a range of agencies including schools and colleges, the youth service, voluntary and community sector, housing providers, social care and health services such as the Family Nurse Partnership.

Performance is measured by looking at both the number of teenage conceptions and the reduction in teenage pregnancy rates. Lewisham’s teenage conception rate for 2010, was 48.6 per 1,000 population of young women aged 15-17 years. This is a 39% reduction against the 1998 baseline rate of 80.3 and was the 6 th best reduction in London for this period. However, while our actual teenage pregnancy rate is still in the lowest quartile nationally, it has improved from being the 3rd worst in London in 2007 to 7 th worst in 2010.

Page 171 The Teenage Pregnancy Programme Manager co-ordinates the work across the partnership including the management of a teenage pregnancy action plan. This is developed in partnership with school nursing, housing providers, children’s centres, youth service, public health, pharmacy, sexual health services, midwifery and the voluntary sector amongst others. The Programme sets targets as agreed by the relevant agencies monitoring this activity through regular meetings and updates to ensure effective delivery as set out in the Children & Young People’s Plan. Successful performance is measured by achievements against targets in the Teenage Pregnancy Action Plan and the resulting changes to the conception rates.

The team provides strategic leadership for the prevention of teenage conception and the support to young parents across the Children’s Partnership, 1:1 intensive support to young women at risk and a drop-in for young parents. The activities provided and commissioned by this team in the past year include:

• Providing training on domestic violence and young people to 75 professionals commissioned from AVA (Against Violence and Abuse) • Providing bespoke sex and relationships education (SRE) training to all 150 Lewisham’s foster carers commissioned from the Sexual and Reproductive Health Service • Providing SRE training to 60 parents commissioned from the FPA (formerly the Family Planning Association) • Providing training on working with young parents to approximately 15 Youth Service staff commissioned from Working With Men • 1:1 support to young women under 19 at risk of teenage conception including family support, pregnancy choices counselling, support pre and post abortion • Weekly young parents drop-in sessions from Kaleidoscope, soon to be operating from Baseline • Advice and support to PSHE leads in Secondary Schools and managers of Children’s Centres • SRE Review in 11 of the borough’s secondary schools (including Special schools) • Training and support to member agencies of the borough’s condom scheme • Reviewing the Teenage Pregnancy Action Plan 2010-2012 and drafting the new plan for 2012-2014 • In addition, the Teenage Pregnancy Programme Manager is or has been: - A panel member for the NHS London Sexual Health in Further Education Colleges (FESH) specification launch event at the House of Lords, chaired by Baroness Gould - The vice-chair of the borough’s Sexual and Domestic Violence Forum

Page 172 - An active member of the local Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) Working Group

Page 173

QUESTION No. 41

Priority 10

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question by Councillor Brooks of the Cabinet Member for Resources

Question

How much has the Council spent on legal fees defending itself at Employment Tribunals over the past 3 years. In how many cases are the legal fees over £50,000 ? How many cases are current ? If an employee is implicated in an action against the Council are their legal fees covered by the Council, does this cover continue if the employee leaves or retires?

The Council has spent the following on legal fees over the past 3 years: 2010 - £195,513.40 2011 - £ 72,736.46 2012 (to present) -£111,950.00

We have recovered £10,300 in costs this year but do not have data for other years. It is unusual for an Employment Tribunal to make an order for costs against a claimant unless there are exceptional circumstances.

In terms of concluded cases, there was one case in 2010 where legal costs exceeded £50,000. The costs were £52,446.13. This case involved a group of employees bringing serious and high value claims which were heard over a number of weeks at the Employment Tribunal. The Council was successful in defending all claims.

It is not appropriate to comment on the exact level of costs in relation to ongoing individual cases.

Page 174 The Employment Tribunal rules allow claimants to bring certain types of claim not only against the Council but also against Council employees and/or former employees. In addition to defending the claim made against the Council, the Council may also offer to represent these employees and/or former employees, free of charge. The individual circumstances of each case affect whether an offer of representation is made to employees and/or former employees. For example, the Council would not offer to represent employees or former employees where there is a conflict of interest between the Council's position and the individual.

Page 175

QUESTION No. 42

Priority 11

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

QUESTION WITHDRAWN

Page 176

QUESTION No. 43

Priority 12

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question by Councillor Brooks of the Cabinet Member for Youth

Question

Following the closure of Connexions, what services are Lewisham’s Young People now receiving? What has been Council’s strategy for tackling the high levels of youth unemployment in Lewisham?

Lewisham's strategy to ensure that young people receive the necessary support to progress into appropriate education, training and employment beyond the age of 16 is both clear and well directed.

Lewisham's strategy is underpinned by the new universal duty placed upon schools from September 2012 under The Education Act 2011 to secure access to independent and impartial careers guidance for all pupils in years 9- 11. In addition, it takes account of the fact that the National Careers Service has been fully operational from April 2012, comprising a single website and telephone helpline number to which schools can direct pupils. In support of this universal duty on schools, the Council undertakes its continuing statutory responsibility under section 68 of the Education and Skills Act 2008 to encourage, enable and assist the participation of young people in education or training by liaising closely with schools and colleges, for example through its Careers Co-ordinators group .

Since the closure of Connexions on the 31 st March 2011, Lewisham Council's available central resources are highly targeted on meeting the needs of young people who require additional support to that provided by schools and colleges, and of those who are not in a position to receive such support. This is set out in its NEET Reduction Strategy. The strategy aims to reduce the number of Lewisham young people up to the age of 19, and of 20 to 24 year

Page 177 olds with learning difficulties, who are not in Education, Employment or Training, including preventing young people becoming NEET, and to contribute to the reduction of the high unemployment levels of 19-24 year olds.

Lewisham Council works closely and in collaboration with partners in order to deliver the strategy. Key partners include the Youth Support Service and Voluntary Action Lewisham, Community Education, Crime Reduction and Supporting People Service, Lewisham Secondary Schools, Lewisham College and Lewisham Job Centre Plus.

A key strand of the strategy is the Baseline centre in central Lewisham through which the Youth Support Service delivers a clearly structured and advertised drop-in service to provide young people with basic information, advice and guidance and a range of other services in an easily accessible location. In particular, Baseline and the Lewisham youth hubs provide one-to- one support for long-term NEET young people aged 13 to 19, and for young people aged 13 to 16 deemed to be at high risk of becoming NEET. Target groups include Looked After Children, teenage parents and young offenders. Younger people aged 13-16 can also access services at Baseline outside school hours.

Young people can also self-refer if they believe they require additional support. The services include initial assessment of a young person's needs, one-to-one key worker support in emergency situations, 48-hour referral service for one-to-one key work support, signposting to other services, e.g. sexual health advice, Jobcentre Plus, Lewisham College, a range of externally funded programmes and for computer access for information, advice and guidance. Transition advice is available for every statemented young person to ensure appropriate progression at post-16. Completion of assessments and transition to further education for young people with learning disabilities and difficulties (LLDD) into mainstream and specialist provision is carried out by LLDD Transition Advisors through Lewisham's Children with Complex Needs Service.

As part of the strategy, a range of Lewisham providers offer programmes for targeted NEET young people aged 16-18, and aged 19-24. Significant amongst these are:

Abbey Manor College - Post-16 provision For a small number of students, successful transition to Further Education is challenging. They are not ready to learn in a large organisation which they often find intimidating. From September 2011, Abbey Manor College therefore offers full time sixth form provision for up to 30 students per year group for 25 hours per week (including sport).

Lewisham College – Department of Foundation Studies The college provides courses that prepare young people for employment and further study alongside the chance to experience different vocational areas. Young people achieve qualifications ranging from Functional and Key Skills

Page 178 Awards and GSCEs, to qualifications which are transferable to Further Education or a new career.

The Mayor’s NEET Programme The Mayor’s NEET Programme is a service for young people who are not in employment, education or training (NEET). It provides young people with the opportunity to gain the skills and confidence to compete for jobs, return to education or start further training.

The NEET Reduction Strategy also partners with a range of externally funded programmes. Important amongst these are European Social Fund (ESF) funded projects : the ESF Preventative NEET Programme, working in Lewisham secondary schools and Lewisham College; the ESF NEET Reduction Programmes, working with Reed In Partnership and Prospects; the ESF Apprenticeship programme, to support increased take-up of Apprenticeships. New ESF Programmes to support NEET prevention and reduction will be delivered in 2013 for Young People with Learning Difficulties and/or Disabilities; the resettlement of young offenders aged 14-17 leaving custody; and the re-engagement of young people aged 14-16, excluded from school.

Lewisham is also in the early stages of engagement with the government's Youth Contract . This is being delivered by a local organisation - Fit for Sport, as a subcontractor of Prevista. The Youth Contact is aimed to support 16 and17 year olds who are currently not participating in education, employment or training (NEET) and who have low levels of attainment (No GCSEs at A*-C). Each identified young person will be assigned a Personal Advisor to help them progress from the initial engagement and assessment stage, to re-engagement via Information, Advice and Guidance and Action Planning, then onto sustaining full time education or training, an Apprenticeship or employment with training during the EET progression stage.

The success of the Lewisham NEET Reduction Strategy is reflected in our historically low NEET figures of 3.8%.

Page 179

QUESTION No. 44

Priority 13

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question by Councillor Brooks of the Cabinet Member for Children & Young People

Question

In this academic school year.

(i) how many year 1 children started school in September 2012

(ii) how many will start in January 2013

(iii) how many children (Sept 2012) not receiving a place at any of their chosen schools are now home taught

(i) The first statutory year of school is Reception. 3611 children started school in September 2012, of whom 3383 live in Lewisham. 89 children have been offered places to start in Year 1 since September 2012.

(ii) The census return in January 2013 will show how many reception age children have deferred entry. Even if parents have agreed with their child’s school that they will do this, the child has to be on roll from September. Children in Year 1 are already of statutory school age (this is the term after the child’s 5 th birthday). Once offered, a place cannot be deferred to January 2013 as the child is already of statutory school age.

(iii) As at 16 November 2012 there were no reception age children and 12 Year 1 children whose parents had elected to educate them at home.

Page 180 Parents elect to educate their child at home for a variety of reasons and the reasons are not formally recorded. Of the 12 families known to the Authority we are aware that parents of two of the Year 1 children said they are educating them at home as a result of them not being offered a place at one of their preferred schools. However, they were offered alternative places within a reasonable distance of their home.

Page 181

QUESTION No. 45

Priority 14

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question by Councillor Brooks of the Cabinet Member for the Third Sector

Question

What has been the councils expenditure on troubled families for the past 5 years. Please list accounts by year.

The Government’s Troubled Families programme began this financial year. The approach in Lewisham has been to ensure that this work is integrated with our existing approaches designed to support vulnerable families, specifically through Children’s Centres and family support services.

The Council has worked closely with partner agencies to develop a range of additional interventions, tailored to the needs of families in Lewisham, using the additional Troubled Families funding of £754,000 for this financial year.

Page 182

QUESTION No. 46

Priority 15

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question by Councillor Brooks of the Cabinet Member for Customer Services

Question

What has been the councils total expenditure on Lewisham Homes for the last 10 years Please list accounts by year

Lewisham Homes was formally incorporated on 22 January 2007.

Cost which have been incurred are:

£000’s

Set-up costs 2,089 Redundancy costs 3,466 Annual fee payments to March 2013 122,176 Total expenditure Jan 2007 - March 2013 127,731

The Annual Fee Amounts Paid Have been: £000’s 2007/08 21,471 (Includes 22/01 – 31/03/07) 2008/09 21,374 2009/10 21,050 2010/11 20,439 2011/12 18,942 2012/13 18,900 (subject to any year end adjustments) Total 122,176

Page 183

QUESTION No. 47

Priority 16

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question by Councillor Brooks of the Cabinet Member for Community Safety

Question

How many incidents of reported stabbings in Lewisham since January of this year until now?

How many of those required hospital treatment ?

There were a total of 122 reported injuries as a direct result of a knife / sharp instrument between 1 January and 16 November 2012.

Apart from knives, weapons used include a tin, glass, an axe and a syringe.

Police data reports do not record details of hospital treatment but do include the type of injury should this be required.

Page 184

QUESTION No. 48

Priority 17

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question by Councillor Brooks of the Cabinet Member for Community Safety

Question

How many incidents of reported shootings have taken place in Lewisham since January of this year until now ?

How many have required hospital treatment ?

There were a total of 21 Firearms Discharges recorded between 1 January and 16 November 2012. Of these, 7 resulted in an injury.

Police data reports do not record details of hospital treatment but do include the type of injury should this be required.

Page 185

QUESTION No. 49

Priority 18

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question by Councillor Brooks of the Cabinet Member for Customer Services

Question

How many families live in privately rented accommodation where housing benefit is paid? a) how many of these landlords have been approved by the Council ? b) how many of these properties have had an inspection by any council team In the last 12 months - please provide dates and properties c) how many landlords is the council working with ? d) how many of these landlords are obtained through estate agents? List agents please e) how many of these estate agents are part of the estate agents association ?

How many families live in privately rented accommodation where housing benefit is paid?

Housing Benefit figures show that there are 10,700 households across the private sector in receipt of Housing Benefit. The figure changes on a weekly basis as new households become eligible for Housing Benefit and as existing claimants circumstances change and they move out of eligibility. a) how many of these landlords have been approved by the Council ?

The Council does not have a role in generally approving private landlords. The vast majority of households who rent within the PRS have found the property themselves without any support or assistance from the Council. The Council does however procure properties in the PRS to accommodate households in housing need This is through the Private Sector leasing Scheme (PSL) and all properties in the scheme will have been approved by

Page 186 the council (at present there are 503 properties within the scheme). A further small group of landlords are licensed by the Council. This sub-group of landlords are landlords who have Homes in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) these are more commonly known as “shared rooms”. There are currently 139 landlords that are licence holders of HMOs in the Borough and who have been approved by the Council. Additionally the Council has a relationship with landlords through the Lewisham Landlord Letting Scheme (LLLS) over the last four years the LLLS and its predecessor the Rent Incentive Scheme have procured 800 properties. b) how many of these properties have had an inspection by any council team in the last 12 months - please provide dates and properties?

All properties within the PSL scheme are inspected prior to allocation and again at three monthly intervals. All licensed HMOs are inspected prior to an HMO licence being issued. They will also receive an annual inspection. Properties procured through the LLLS will have an inspection when initially procured. c) how many landlords is the council working with ?

The Council is currently working with all owners of the 1,460 properties identified above. d) how many of these landlords are obtained through estate agents? List agents please

There are twenty-three agents that act as managing agents for Licensed HMOs:-

Amber Residential Ltd., Paul 67 Lee High Road London SE13 5NS Simpson Derek Jenkinson Flat 7, 53 Langton Road London SW9 6UG Doyle Properties 15 Thurlow Park Road London SE21 8JB Gwendolyn Ann McLean 400-408 Stanstead Road London SE6 4XB Lasker Land Limited (T/A Unit 42 City Business Centre, London SE16 2XB Clubeasy London) St Olav's Court Mr A Jones c/o Pavillion Property Services London SE4 2AB 25 Brockley Cross Mr David Steel Oasis Trust 1 Kennington Road London SE1 7QP Mr Jacques Van Der Merwe 35 Aland Court Finland Street London SE16 7LA Mr Kiren Lokesh 58 Church Road London SE19 7EZ Mr Mark Mannix 350 Brockley Road London SE4 2BY Mr N Luddington t/a Parkers 180 New Cross Road London SE14 5AA Estate Agents Mr Oliver Khondoker 322 Lewisham Road London SE13 7PA Mrs Gwenny Jones 110 Hale Street East Peckham TN12 5HN Mrs Patricia Richardson 24 Westdown Road London SE6 4RL Ms Juliette C E Young 103 Wood Vale London SE23 3DT Ms Rocque 21e Perry Vale London SE23 2NE Nicholas Edward Luddington Parkers Estate Agents 180New London SE14 5AA Cross Road Peter James Estate Agents 256 New Cross Road London SE14 5PL

Page 187 Rebecca Long 90 92 Tressillian Road London SE4 1YD Robert Leslie Cable Regent House 291 Kirkdale London SE26 4QD Simon Holifield 12 Brockley Road London SE6 2PT Threshold Housing Advice Bedford House 215 Balham London SW17 7BQ High Road Ultimate Housing Limited 34 Finland Street London SE16 7TP e) how many of these estate agents are part of the estate agents association ?

Records are not kept as to whether or not those agents are part of the estate agents association.

Page 188

QUESTION No. 50

Priority 19

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question by Councillor Brooks of the Cabinet Member for Customer Services

Question

How many members of staff who use the underground car park have not paid for a parking permit?

All staff using any of the Council’s staff car parks are required to pay the business permit price of £500 per annum or pro rata if they work reduced hours via a deduction in their salary.

All chief officers based in Catford have access to the Laurence House basement but only some use it for car parking. Some staff with Blue Badges are also allowed to use the basement at no charge. An audit is conducted at regular intervals to ensure that everyone who should pay does.

Page 189

QUESTION No. 51

Written Reply

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question by Councillor Maines of the Cabinet Member for Children & Young People

Question

How many students from Lewisham went to University in 2010, 2011 and 2012 ?

The Department for Education has changed the way in which this data is measured. In 2010, we reported on students from Lewisham schools . This was 1205 students who went to university.

From 2011, this changed to report on Lewisham residents , regardless of where they studied. In 2011 there were 2006 students who went to university. In 2012 there are 1362 students who have progressed to university. For 2012 the final figure will not be available for reporting until the end of January 2013.

Page 190

QUESTION No. 52

WrittenReply

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question by Councillor Maines of the Cabinet Member for Customer Services

Question

Has the Council received any revenue from Litter fines over the past 3 years ?

The fine is £75 for a fixed penalty notice for littering – there have been 140 notices and approximately half of the fines have been paid and the others have been converted to simple cautions.

Page 191

QUESTION No. 53

Written Reply

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question by Councillor Maines of the Deputy Mayor

Question

What income does the Council receive from advertisements and sponsorship on highway land in Lewisham ?

The Council receives £20k pa from advertising income for the JC Decaux signs, but also receives some cashless benefits, such as Public Toilets and free advertising.

Page 192

QUESTION No.54

Written Reply

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question by Councillor Maines of the Cabinet Member for Customer Services

Question

When were the by-laws for Blackheath last re-written? How does the Council ensure that the by-laws share commonality with parts of Blackheath in Greenwich? What procedure is followed in changing and updating by-laws?

The by-laws that are in force for Lewisham's part of the heath are ones made in 1932 by the London County Council. Greenwich have their own by-laws made in 1997, that relate to their part of the heath.

Lewisham officers have been working with Greenwich for some time, with the aim of making identical sets of by-laws for both areas and submitting them jointly for approval to the confirming government department, which in respect of Blackheath is DEFRA. A draft form of by-laws was agreed with Greenwich’s lawyers that incorporated changes that were identified as being necessary to deal with current problems associated with the use of the heath and to allow for such issues to be addressed in a consistent manner. We are currently waiting for LB Greenwich to formally approve the draft by-laws.

The current procedure for the adoption of by-laws is prescribed by sections 235-238 of the Local Government Act 1972. Those sections set out how by- laws are to be made by local authorities, advertised and confirmed. In addition Government departments publish guidance. Whilst not a statutory requirement it is strongly advised that authorities follow. For example, obtaining the provisional approval of draft by-laws before they are made.

In 2009, the provisions of the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 relating to by-laws became law. This contains provisions that enable regulations to be made that would permit local authorities to make their own by-laws, rather than having to have them confirmed by central government. Despite assurance from the by-laws officer in the Department of

Page 193 Communities and Local Government that those regulations would be made very shortly, such regulations have still not been forthcoming.

A draft set of by-laws has been submitted to DEFRA in October for their consideration. A response is awaited. Officers will continue to brief the Blackheath Joint Working Party of progress made.

Page 194

QUESTION No. 55

Written Reply

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question by Councillor Maines of the Deputy Mayor

Question

How much did it cost the Council to install small brick paving stones in the reservation on Whitefoot Lane? How much would tarmac have cost?

Who determines the whether maintenance work undertaken by contractors is upgraded or replaced on a "like for like" basis ?

Whitefoot Lane central reservation improvements is a TFL funded project through the Local Implementation Plan . The scheme involves improving the central reservation by means of reconstruction. This work is a continuation of the improvements carried out in previous years.

The central reservation kerb height in some instances has been raised as a deterrent to vehicles trying to cross it, and this follows on from a similar scheme which was carried out in Southend Lane. Raising the kerb heights and infilling with blocks also provides an improved refuge for any pedestrians that may use this as a crossing point.

In discussion with TfL it was decided not to opt to reinstate the existing soft landscaping that consisted of earth, a few stumps and bushes, was not maintainable due to access difficulties and was unsuitable as an environment for plants.

AsphaIt was not considered as infill to the central reservation as the block paving on a stronger base is more attractive and of a more robust construction. It is estimated that the blockwork construction costs an additional £35k, out of an estimated contract of £188k, all met from TfL funding.

Page 195

QUESTION No. 56

Written Reply

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

28 NOVEMBER 2012

Question by Councillor Maines of the Mayor

Question

How many staff currently work in the Mayor and Cabinet office? What is the total budget for the Mayor and Cabinet office?

In a service context, there are currently (2012/13) four full time members of staff working in the Mayor and Cabinet office providing executive and administrative support to the Mayor and Cabinet. In 2009/10, the comparative figure was eight. In addition to these roles, the constitution makes provision for a Mayoral Assistant.

The total salary cost of the Mayor and Cabinet office is £275k and comprises the posts outlined above and also one of the two group Political Assistants (the cost of the Minority Group Political Assistant being met from the Committee and Business budget).

Page 196 Agenda Item 9

COUNCIL

Report Title Development Management Local Plan: Further Options Version

Key Decision Yes Item No.

Ward All

Contributors Head of Planning & Head of Law

Class Part 1 Date:28 November 2012

1. Summary

1.1 In accordance with the Council’s constitution a resolution from the full Council is required for each stage of preparation and adoption of a statutory Local Plan. The Planning Service is preparing the Development Management Local Plan (DMLP) and propose to consult the public, statutory bodies and other interested parties on policy options to be taken forward into a draft Local Plan. The DMLP: Further Options Versions sets out for consultation the Council’s preferred policy options together with reasonable alternatives. This is a requirement of the planning regulations. The Consultation period will extend from December through to January 2013 with extra time allowed for consultation to reflect the holiday period.

2. Purpose

2.1 This report seeks the Council’s formal resolution to consult the public and other stakeholders on the Development Management Local Plan (DMLP): Further Options Version which is set out as annex 1 to this report.

3. Policy context

3.1 The DMLP will become part of the Council's policy framework as set out in the Council’s constitution once adopted. This is an options stage for public consultation. The full policy context is set out in the report to Mayor and Cabinet dated 14th November 2012 which is set out as annex 2 to this report.

4. Recommendation

4.1 The Council is recommended to resolve to approve the DMLP: Further Options Version for statutory public consultation.

5. Background

Page 197 5.1 Members will be aware that the Planning Service is preparing a number of Local Plans that will set out the town planning strategy and policy for the borough over the next 10-15 years. The Core Strategy was adopted by the Council in June 2011. The DMLP will set out the detailed planning policies to implement the Core Strategy and for use in determining planning applications.

5.2 The Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 set out the form and content of local plans and the process to be followed for adoption. In summary, in preparing a local plan (regulation 18) the local planning authority must consult certain named bodies and organisations including local residents and local business about the proposed content of the local plan and take any representations received into account when preparing the local plan.

5.3 The DMLP: Further Options Version is not a draft or final plan but rather shows the policy options the Council could include as part of the final DMLP together with reasonable alternatives that have been considered. These alternatives are also subject to public consultation and therefore local stakeholders can give their view on both the preferred option the council is promoting but also the alternatives which have been considered but are not promoted. The views expressed as part of the consultation will be taken into account in preparing the draft DMLP for public consultation next year.

5.4 The Report to Mayor and Cabinet dated 14th November 2012 set out the policy context, background and a summary of the DMLP: Further Options Version content. The Mayor and Cabinet Report of 14th November 2012 is attached as annex 2 to this report.

6. Conclusion

6.1 The Council is asked to resolve to approve the Development Management Local Plan: Further Options Version for statutory public consultation. The DMLP: Further Options Version is attached as annex1 to this report.

Background documents

Short Title Date File File Contact Exempt Document Location Reference Officer Planning & 2004 Laurence Planning Brian No Compulsory House Policy Regan Purchases Act 2004 NPPF 2012 Laurence Planning Brian No

Page 198 House Policy Regan Local Plan 2012 Laurence Planning Brian No Regulations House Policy Regan

If you have any queries on this report, please contact Brian Regan, Planning Policy, 5 th floor Laurence House, 1 Catford Road, Catford SE6 4RU – telephone 020 8314 8774.

Annex 1: Development Management Local Plan: Further Options Version.

This may be viewed at: http://councilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/documents/s18740/Annex%201 %20Development%20Management%20Local%20Plan.pdf

Annex 2: Report to Mayor and Cabinet 14 th November 2012 on Development Management Local Plan: Further Options Version

This may be viewed at: http://councilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/documents/s18660/Developmen t%20Management%20Local%20Plan%20Further%20Options%20Version. pdf

Page 199 Agenda Item 10

COUNCIL Report Title Community Infrastructure Levy – Draft Charging Schedule

Key Decision Yes Item No.

Ward All

Contributors Head of Planning & Head of Law

Class Part 1 Date: 28 November 2012

1. Summary 1.1 The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is a levy which Local Planning Authorities in England may charge against most types of new development in their area. The money raised will be used to pay for local strategic infrastructure in order to support the additional demand arising from new development such as schools, hospitals, roads and transport schemes, as well as libraries, parks and leisure centres. The rate at which CIL is chargeable is taken from the charging schedule which is in place at the time planning permission first permits the chargeable development and in the area the chargeable development will be situated. There are exceptions for minor developments and charities. This report presents the Draft Charging Schedule that is seeking to set the CIL rate from April 2014 – 2019.

2. Purpose 2.1 This report provides a summary of how the CIL Draft Charging Schedule has been prepared and the key evidence that supports it. Approval is required to undertake statutory public consultation.

3. Recommendation 3.2 The Council’s formal resolution is sought, to approve the following documents for statutory public consultation and submission for independent examination.

Annex 1: CIL Draft Charging Schedule – November 2012 Annex 2: Background Paper – What is CIL – December 2011 Annex 3: Background Paper – CIL Infrastructure Delivery Schedule – December 2011 Annex 4: Background Paper – CIL Economic Viability Study – December 2011 Annex 5: Background Paper – CIL Economic Viability Study – Addendum September 2012 Annex 6: CIL Consultation Statement – Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule – August 2012

Page 200 2.3 Copies of these documents can be found on the Council website at: http://councilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=138& MId=2368

4. Background 4.1 In order to charge CIL, the authority must produce a charging schedule which identifies the rate or rates due by development. The CIL Draft Charging Schedule is the final draft of the charging schedule for Lewisham. The authority is then required to publish it for the public and interested parties to make representations on before submitting these and the draft schedule to an independent examiner for an Examination in Public.

4.2 It is proposed to put the annexed documents out to public consultation in December 2012 and January 2013. The report to Mayor and Cabinet on 14 November 2012 set out a summary and the background and purpose of the CIL Draft Charging Schedule. The report received approval from Mayor and Cabinet and is attached to this report.

5. Conclusion 5.1 The CIL Draft Charging Schedule is put forward for statutory public consultation. The delivery of CIL will ensure that the borough continues to receive contributions towards the delivery of strategic, green, physical and social infrastructure from new development. Following public consultation the Draft Charging Schedule will be submitted to an independent examiner for an Examination in Public.

Background Documents

Short Title Document Date File Location File Re ference Contact Officer Exempt Planning Act 2008 2008 Laurence House Planning Policy Brian Regan No Community Infrastructure Levy2010 Laurence House Planning Policy Brian Regan No Regulations Community Infrastructure Levy2011 Laurence House Planning Policy Brian Regan No Regulations

If you have any queries on this report, please contact Brian Regan, Planning Policy, 5 th floor Laurence House, 1 Catford Road, Catford SE6 4RU – telephone 020 8314 8774.

Page 201

ANNEX 7 – Mayor and Cabinet Report Report Title Community Infrastructure Lev y – Draft Charging Schedule

Key Decision YES Item No.

Ward All Contributors Head of Planning & Head of Law

Class Part 1 Date: 14 November 2012

1. Summary 1.2 The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is a Levy which Local Planning Authorities in England may charge against most types of new development in their area. The money raised will be used to pay for local strategic infrastructure in order to support the additional demand arising from new development such as schools, hospitals, roads and transport schemes, as well as libraries, parks and leisure centres. The rate at which CIL is chargeable is taken from the charging schedule which is in place at the time planning permission first permits the chargeable development and in the area the chargeable development will be situated. There are exceptions for minor developments and charities.

1.3 In order to charge CIL, the authority must produce a charging schedule which identifies the rate or rates due by development. The CIL Draft Charging Schedule is the final draft of the charging schedule for Lewisham. The authority is then required to publish the Draft Charging Schedule for the public and interested parties to make representations on before submitting these and the draft schedule to an independent examiner for an Examination in Public.

5. Purpose 5.1 This report seeks approval to undertake statutory public consultation and subsequently submit the CIL Draft Charging Schedule to an independent examiner for an Examination in Public.

5.2 This report provides a summary of how the CIL Draft Charging Schedule has been prepared and the key evidence that supports it. The following documents are annexed:

Page 202 Annex 5: Background Paper – CIL Economic Viability Study – Addendum September 2012 Annex 6: CIL Consultation Statement – Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule – August 2012

2.4 Copies of these documents can be found on the Council website at: http://councilmeetings.lewisham.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=139&MId=2 459

6. Recommendation 3.1 The Mayor is recommended to approve the CIL Draft Charging Schedule for statutory public consultation in accordance with the Statement of Community Involvement and for submission to an independent examiner for the purpose of an Examination in Public and to recommend that the Full Council do the same.

3.3 The Mayor is recommended to delegate power to make any minor changes to the text and format of the documents prior to consideration by the Full Council and prior to Submission, to the Executive Director for Resources and Regeneration.

4. Policy context 4.1 The contents of this report are consistent with the Council's policy framework. The CIL Draft Charging Schedule contributes to the implementation of the Council’s eight priorities and will help deliver the Sustainable Community Strategy (Shaping Our Future) (SCS), which was prepared by the Local Strategic Partnership and adopted by the Council in May 2008.

4.2 The CIL will provide funding and a system to help support the implementation of the SCS vision ‘Together we will make Lewisham the best place to live, work and learn’ and all of the six strategic priorities, which are:

• Ambitious and achieving – where people are inspired and supported to fulfil their potential • Safer – where people feel safe and live free from crime, antisocial behaviour and abuse • Empowered and responsible – where people are actively involved in their local area and contribute to supportive communities • Clean, green and liveable – where people live in high quality housing and can care for their environment • Healthy, active and enjoyable – where people can actively participate in maintaining and improving their health and well-being • Dynamic and prosperous – where people are part of vibrant communities and town centres, well connected to London and beyond

4.3 The CIL Draft Charging Schedule will help implement a range of other Council policies and strategies including, but not limited to the following:

Page 203

• All Local Development Framework DPD’s • People Prosperity Place; Lewisham's Regeneration Strategy 2008 - 2020 • Children and Young People’s Plan • Local Implementation Plan (Transport) • Lewisham Physical Activity Plan (2010-2013) • Ravensbourne River Corridor Improvement Plan, 2009 • North Lewisham Links Strategy, 2007 • Lewisham Social Inclusion Strategy, 2005 • Local Education Authority School Plan • Lewisham NHS Estate Strategy • Healthy Weight, Healthy Lives (PCT with LB Lewisham), 2009

4.4 The regulations state that the CIL Charging Schedule is to be treated the same as a planning Local Development Framework Development Plan Document and therefore the CIL will require the approval of the Full Council.

5 Introduction and background 5.1 The CIL is a new levy that local authorities may charge on development in their area. The money generated is to be spent upon infrastructure that is required in the local authority such as transport needs, parks, schools, sports centres and community facilities.

5.2 In order to charge CIL, local authorities must produce a charging schedule which identifies who will pay CIL and at what rates (see Annex 1: CIL Draft Charging Schedule – October 2012). The current system for collecting money from developments for the purpose of delivering infrastructure, ‘Section 106’, has had its remit severely reduced as of April 2014. This will mean that in order to continue collecting infrastructure funding from development after this date a CIL charging schedule must be in place. The London Borough of Lewisham is seeking to create a CIL charging schedule that will commence in April 2014 or before and run until April 2019.

5.3 What development is charged?

CIL will be levied using £’s per square metre and the chargeable area will be the net additional increase in floorspace of any given development. It is applicable to all new buildings and extensions greater than 100sqm of gross internal floorspace and unreservedly to all new dwellings.

If there are existing buildings on the development site which are to be demolished for redevelopment, the associated floorspace may be applicable for deduction from the chargeable floorspace, although other regulations have a bearing.

5.4 Is any development exempt? There are a few types of development that are exempt from paying CIL as follows:

Page 204 • Affordable housing is exempt from CIL and should be dealt with through the remaining Section 106 procedure

• Social housing and development that is to be used for charitable services are exempt (subject to a number of conditions detailed in the regulations)

• The council can specify exemptions of its own should it wish. Details of any exemptions will be identified in the Charging Schedule.

5.5 For further introductory details regarding CIL, including what it is, why we are producing one and how it will work, please see the FAQ’s section of Annex 2: Background paper – What is CIL – December 2011.

6. CIL Infrastructure Delivery Schedule 6.1 The CIL regulations require that in order to set a CIL charging schedule, the Council must have an appropriate evidence base to support the proposed levy. Part of this evidence base is an Infrastructure Delivery Schedule (IDS) which outlines the infrastructure required to support development in the borough. The schedule should present the projects in need of funding from CIL (either in part or entirely), the estimated cost of the infrastructure and the proportion of subsidy expected to be provided by both CIL and other sources of funding.

6.2 An assessment of the infrastructure required to sustain development in the borough was undertaken as part of the evidence base for the Local Development Framework in 2010. This assessment has been reviewed to reflect the latest position and priorities and to include / exclude projects that are appropriate to receive CIL funding.

6.3 The resulting CIL Infrastructure Delivery Schedule (CIL IDS) identifies a list of infrastructure projects that are required to support development and have a gap in secured funding which CIL can assist with (See Annex 3). The list includes: • green infrastructure such as parks, rivers and footpaths • physical infrastructure such as road and rail improvements and • social infrastructure such as schools, doctors and community facilities.

6.4 The CIL IDS identifies a funding gap of £70m that is required for infrastructure between 2014 and 2019 and which CIL can assist with filling. This, importantly, proves that CIL is required as the regulations specify that CIL is only justified if there is a proven gap in infrastructure funding.

6.5 The CIL IDS is required to prove that there is a need for CIL funding, which it does, to the value of £70m. However, the Council are not required to spend the income generated from CIL on the projects in the CIL IDS list. It is understood that circumstances and priorities will change over time and therefore the Council may decide what projects are supported once the CIL funding has been

Page 205 secured. The projects must be capital projects and they must be strategic infrastructure that is required to support development in the borough.

7. Economic Viability Study 7.1 In setting the rate of CIL the Council must consider the appropriate balance between the desirability of using CIL to fund the cost of infrastructure required to support new development and the potential effects of the imposition of CIL on the economic viability of development across the borough.

7.2 This means that in setting the CIL rate the Council need to demonstrate that the proposed CIL rate will not put development across the borough, taken as a whole , at undue risk.

7.3 In order to assist with understanding the economic viability of development in the borough, the Council employed independent consultants to produce an Economic Viability Study (EVS) (See Annex 4 and Annex 5). The resulting report provides a robust and evidenced assessment of the size of CIL rate (in £/sqm) that future development in the borough will, in general, be able to afford to pay without causing development, in general to become financially unviable.

7.4 The Council have the option to charge variable rates dependent upon both the geographical location of a development and the type of development. The EVS found viability evidence justifying a higher CIL liability in the northern parts of the borough compared to in the rest of the borough. Similarly, viability evidence also shows that residential development can afford a higher CIL liability than other forms of development, while business and industrial developments (B class uses) can not afford to pay CIL.

8. Producing a Charging Schedule 8.1 Using the evidence from the background reports discussed above, the Council have been able to produce a CIL charging matrix as follows in Table 8.1.

Table 8.1: CIL rates

Geographical zonesCategory A Category B Category C

Zone 1 £100 / sqm £80 / sqm £0 / sqm Zone 2 £70 / sqm £80 / sqm £0 / sqm Category A = Residential Category B = Everything else apart from Categories A and C Category C = Business (offices, industrial, storage and distribution)

8.2 The two CIL payment zones have been created using current postcode boundaries in order to make use of an existing system of geographical division that is already utilised within the development industry. Table 8.2 contains the

Page 206 list of postcodes that are subject to the payment of CIL grouped into the two previously arranged zones and Map 8.1 (overleaf) illustrates the table.

Table 8.2: CIL payment zones (postcodes) Zone 1 SE3, SE8, SE10 & SE16

Zone 2 BR1, BR3, SE4, SE6, SE9, SE12, SE13, SE14, SE15, SE23 & SE26

Map 8.1: CIL payment zones

Page 207

8.3 Officers have calculated that the introduction of a CIL charge at the rates proposed will produce an income of approximately £20m over the CIL charging period (2014 – 2019) to support the delivery of infrastructure in the borough. This is less than the £70m set out by the CIL IDS as required to fund infrastructure. The funding gap is an expected occurrence given the time until the implementation of the projects assessed. The council will continue to work with public, private and voluntary sources to seek funding and assistance in ensuring the delivery of all the infrastructure projects in the CIL IDS.

8.4 In the long term it is likely that CIL should provide increased funding for strategic infrastructure to assist new development as compared with the sum secured through the current negotiable “Section 106” system for collecting contributions. This is because CIL will be due on all developments in categories A and B whereas S106 funding is only available on major developments where mitigation measures are required. On a like for like basis the Council’s charges under CIL should attract a similar level of funding on a per scheme basis as is currently the case under S106.

8.5 The CIL period has been set by officers as 2014 – 2019. During this time the charging schedule is index linked on 1 April each year according to the All-In Tender Price Index as at the previous November 1st, so charges per square meter will adjust year on year. If circumstances change dramatically during this period causing the CIL rate to be considered too high or low, the Council may need to review the charging schedule. In order to do so, a new charging schedule must be produced, consulted upon and go through an independent examination before it is adopted. If no changes are required prior to 2019, a new schedule will be produced for the period 2019 – 2024.

9. Consultation on the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule 9.1 The first draft of the CIL charging schedule, was called the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule and was produced in January 2012. This version of the charging schedule was publicly consulted upon for six weeks in March and April 2012 and received 42 comments in response from 15 different respondents. 24 of the comments were largely in support of the charging schedule, while 18 were objections or suggestions how to improve the schedule. As a result, a small number of minor changes have been made to the CIL Draft Charging Schedule to clarify, a) when the adopted CIL will be reviewed, b) that the Mayor of London’s CIL is accounted for, and c) that police facilities are a type of infrastructure.

9.2 Council Officer’s responses to all of the comments received during the consultation are included in the PDCS Consultation Statement (See Annex 6), which will be made publicly available during the consultation on the Draft Charging Schedule, ensuring all respondents are able to see what has happened as a result of their comments.

Page 208

10. Legal Implications 10.1 The key stages and requirements in progressing the emerging CIL charging schedule and the main legal implications are described in the body of this report.

10.2 The primary legislation governing the making of and implementation of a CIL charging schedule is the Planning Act 2008 (as amended) and the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended).

10.3 A charging schedule must contain the rates (as set out in pounds per square meter) at which CIL is to be chargeable in the Council’s administrative area and where the charging authority sets different rates a map which contains the location and boundaries of the zones should be reproduced (with an explanation of any symbol used) and an explanation of how the chargeable amount was calculated.

10.4 The CIL charging schedule is to be regarded in the same manner as a Development Plan Document in the Local Development Framework, therefore the function of approving it is shared by Mayor and Cabinet and Full Council. The CIL Draft Charging Schedule must therefore be referred to Full Council for approval to undertake statutory public consultation.

10.5 As part of the consultation, the charging authority must send a copy of the draft to each neighboring local planning authority and the London Mayor to invite representations. The charging authority must also invite representations from persons resident or carrying out business in the area. The Council has adopted its Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) which sets out the minimum consultation that will take place for LDF documents and it is a requirement of a ‘sound’ plan that the standards in the SCI are met. This will include statutory consultees, land owners, community groups and other interested individuals and groups.

10.6 The Equality Act 2010 (the Act) brings together all previous equality legislation in England, Scotland and Wales. The Act includes a new public sector equality duty (the equality duty or the duty), replacing the separate duties relating to race, disability and gender equality. The duty came into force on 6 April 2011. The new duty covers the following nine protected characteristics: age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex and sexual orientation.

10.7 In summary, the Council must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to:

• eliminate unlawful discrimination, harassment and victimisation and other conduct prohibited by the Act.

Page 209 • advance equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.

• foster good relations between people who share a protected characteristic and those who do not.

10.8 As was the case for the original separate duties, the new duty continues to be a “have regard duty”, and the weight to be attached to it is a matter for the Mayor, bearing in mind the issues of relevance and proportionality. It is not an absolute requirement to eliminate unlawful discrimination, advance equality of opportunity or foster good relations.

10.9 The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) issued guidance in January 2011 providing an overview of the new public sector equality duty, including the general equality duty, the specific duties and who they apply to. The guidance covers what public authorities should do to meet the duty including steps that are legally required, as well as recommended actions. The guidance was based on the then draft specific duties so is no longer fully up-to-date, although regard may still be had to it until the revised guide is produced by the EHRC. The guidance can be found at http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/advice- and-guidance/new-equality-act-guidance/equality-act-guidance- downloads/ .

10.10 The EHRC guidance does not have legal standing, unlike the statutory Code of Practice on the public sector equality duty which was due to be produced by the EHRC under the Act. However, the Government has now stated that no further statutory codes under the Act will be approved. The EHRC has indicated that it will issue the draft code on the PSED as a non statutory code following further review and consultation but, like the guidance, the non statutory code will not have legal standing.

11. Crime and disorder implications 11.1 The CIL will assist in the funding of green, physical and social infrastructure where development is completed. Improvements in infrastructure, particularly social and community facilities, may have a positive affect on levels of crime and disorder.

12. Equalities implications 12.1 The Council’s Comprehensive Equality Scheme for 2012-16 provides an overarching framework and focus for the Council's work on equalities and helps ensure compliance with the Equality Act 2010.

12.2 In setting out the regulations and guidance for CIL, central government performed an equalities assessment on the CIL process and found there were no negative consequences of introducing CIL. The CIL Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule was also subject to a local Equalities Analysis Assessment. The results of the local assessment agreed with the central government

Page 210 judgment that there are no negative consequences of introducing CIL. Indeed, the improved level of infrastructure funding could be beneficial to all residents and visitors to Lewisham, including many equalities groups. As the EqAA has previously been seen by the Council and subsequently agreed by the Corporate Equalities Board, it has not been re-presented as part of this report.

13. Environmental implications 13.1 Environmental issues are at the heart both of the planning process and the delivery of supporting infrastructure. Although the proceeds from charging CIL do not have to be spent specifically on the projects in the CIL IDS list, it is fair to assume that over time environmentally beneficial infrastructure projects will receive funding from CIL.

14. Financial Implications 14.1 The introduction of CIL will mean that the Council will be able to charge developers based on specific rates set out in this report in order to generate income to fund infrastructure improvements. Existing S106 funding is to be scaled back and will be replaced by the new charges under CIL. Therefore the income generated by CIL of circa £20m over the period 2014 to 2019 will not be entirely new money but also partly a replacement of what the Council might have got under S106. As explained in point 8.4, CIL is chargeable on more development than S106 and therefore an increase in funding should be secured, however this funding remains significantly less than the £70m required under the Infrastructure Delivery Schedule.

14.2 The costs associated with the printing, publishing and consulting on the CIL Draft Charging Schedule will be met from the existing Planning Services budget.

15. Conclusion 15.1 The CIL Draft Charging Schedule is put forward for statutory public consultation. The delivery of CIL will ensure that the borough continues to receive contributions towards the delivery of strategic green, physical and social infrastructure from new development. Following public consultation the Draft Charging Schedule will be submitted to an independent examiner for an Examination in Public.

Background Documents

Short Title Document Date File Location File Reference Contact Officer Exempt Planning Act 2008 2008 Laurence House Planning Policy Brian Regan No Community Infrastructure Levy2010 Laurence House Planning Policy Brian Regan No Regulations Community Infrastructure Levy2011 Laurence House Planning Policy Brian Regan No Regulations

Page 211 If you have any queries on this report, please contact Brian Regan, Planning Policy, 5 th floor Laurence House, 1 Catford Road, Catford SE6 4RU – telephone 020 8314 8774.

Page 212 Lewisham Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)

Draft Charging Schedule

November 2012 Copy for Full Council

Page 213 Page 214 Contents

1. Introduction p1 2. Methodology p2 3. Evidence base p3 CIL Infrastructure Delivery Schedule CIL Economic Viability Study 4. Creating a charging schedule p6 Infrastructure need vs. viability Differential rates Setting a proposed rate 5. The proposed CIL p9 The rate Geographical zones Exceptions and exemptions Rates and indexing Income for delivering infrastructure Monitoring and review schedule 6. Testing the charging schedule p13 7. Responding to the consultation p15 8. Next steps p16

Page 215 1. Introduction

1.1 This document is the draft charging schedule for the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) of the London Borough of Lewisham. It contains the charging schedule itself as well as an explanation of the methodology used to calculate the CIL and the evidence used to support it. Lastly it details the public consultation procedure that accompanies this report.

1.2 The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is a new levy that local authorities can choose to charge on new developments in their area. The CIL was first introduced in April 2010 and has since been amended by further regulations in 2011. The money generated is to be spent upon infrastructure that is required in the local authority which may include roads and other transport needs, parks, schools, sports centres, emergency services and community facilities.

1.3 In order to charge CIL local authorities must produce a charging schedule which identifies the detail of who will pay CIL and at what rate. This is the purpose of this document. For further introductory details regarding CIL, including what it is, why we are producing one and how it will work, please see the accompanying document to this schedule called “Background paper – What is CIL?”. For the purposes of this document, the London Borough of Lewisham is seeking to create a CIL that will commence at the latest in April 2014 and run until April 2019.

1 Page 216 2. Methodology

2.1 The production of a CIL charging schedule is subject to considerable regulation and guidance, which has been carefully followed. In selecting a methodology to produce the schedule, there is a key binding principle in the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations, 2010 which had significant influence, that of Regulation 14:

14.(1) In setting rates (including differential rates) in a charging schedule, a charging authority must aim to strike what appears to the charging authority to be an appropriate balance between:

(a) the desirability of funding from CIL (in whole or in part) the actual and expected estimated total cost of infrastructure required to support the development of its area, taking into account other actual and expected sources of funding; and (b) the potential effects (taken as a whole) of the imposition of CIL on the economic viability of development across its area.

2.2 Regulation 14 determines that a charging authority, in order to levy a charge must be able to prove that (a) funding is required to support social infrastructure and (b) that charging a levy will not, on the most part, prevent development from occurring.

2.3 Of key note in Regulation 14 is the phrase “an appropriate balance”. The council have made every effort to ensure that a fair and logical approach has been taken to producing a charging schedule that establishes an appropriate balance between securing funding and not hindering development. In order to achieve this, the Council has been obligated to revisit its existing Local Plan evidence base and where appropriate make adjustments or new additions to it.

2 Page 217 3. Evidence base

3.1 The evidence that supports this Draft Charging Schedule is, where possible, taken from the Local Plan evidence base. The Lewisham Local Plan contains the key planning document of the Core Strategy which was adopted in June 2011 as well as four other Local Plans that are due for submission for examination in the next year and adoption before the end of 2013 (Lewisham Local Development Scheme, 2010). Alongside a small number of retained local Unitary Development Plan 2004 policies and the London Plan 2011, the Council consider this to be an up to date development plan.

CIL Infrastructure Delivery Schedule 3.2 The CIL Infrastructure Delivery Schedule (CIL IDS) was created to inform the CIL process of the need for infrastructure provision in Lewisham during the CIL payment period that will require additional funding to be provided by CIL.

3.3 For a detailed explanation of the process and findings of the CIL IDS, please see the associated document “Background paper – CIL Infrastructure Delivery Schedule”.

3.4 Briefly, the CIL IDS is based upon the Core Strategy Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) that details the strategic infrastructure needs of the borough and is part of the evidence base for the councils Local Plan process and documents. The IDP has been reviewed so that those infrastructure schemes that are not relevant to CIL as they, for example, are not due for delivery in the CIL period or do not require CIL funding, have been removed from the list. Meanwhile, the review has also discovered a number of additional schemes as well as addressing any changes in priorities, expected delivery schedules, or other minor adjustments that have been required.

3.5 The resulting detailed schedule and set of summaries of the individual schemes are in the CIL IDS background paper, however Table 3.1, contains a summary of the results.

3.6 Table 3.1 shows that in the CIL period between April 2014 and April 2019 the borough will be expected to spend over £210m on strategic infrastructure. Of this total over a £125m is to be sourced through public and third sector funding, however this still leaves a considerable funding deficit of £85m. There will continue to be some income sourced for permissions granted under the old Section 106 funding system, but delivered in the CIL period, supplying over £15m.

3 Page 218 3. Evidence base

3.7 The result of these calculations is that the maximum monetary value that the council could look to gain through CIL in the period 2014 – 2019 is £70.36m.

Table 3.1: CIL IDS Summary

Developer Approx Capital Other funding Infrastructure Type contributions Cost sources required Green infrastructure £23.29m £10.85m £12.44m

Physical infrastructure £48.84m £32.01m £16.83m

Education £41.80m £33.40m £8.40m Health £5.80m £5.80m £0.00m Community £5.75m £3.75m £2.00m Social infrastructure £53.35m £42.95m £10.40m

Total infrastructure £125.48m £85.81m £39.67m requirements

Minus

Expected residual S106 £15.45m input

Equals

Remaining CIL requirement £70.36m

CIL Economic Viability Study (CIL EVS) 3.7 The Council employed Lambert Smith Hampton (LSH) to assist them in understanding the economic viability circumstances of development in Lewisham. Lewisham Council and LSH have worked closely together on a number of other projects related to economic viability in the borough and LSH have extensive experience of viability matters elsewhere in London and across the UK.

4 Page 219 3. Evidence base

3.8 Through discussion LSH arrived at a methodology to complete the Economic Viability Study (EVS). The process used a Residual Land Value model, based on assumptions reflecting borough wide data collection. The model then tested the impact of various CIL contributions on viability using several assumption scenarios. Finally, the results were analysed jointly by LSH and the Council to ensure they reflected reality in the borough. It should be noted that the CIL EVS provides a recommended CIL rate that is at an implementable level for Lewisham, it is NOT a maximum rate. For further detail of the process and findings of the CIL EVS, please see the associated background document “CIL Viability Appraisal”.

3.9 The Mayor of London adopted the London wide CIL in April 2012. This requires development in the Borough of Lewisham to pay £35 / sqm for all eligible net new floorspace to the Mayor to support the delivery of Crossrail. The cost of this levy is included in the economic viability assessment for Lewisham to ensure that the borough levy rate is affordable after the London levy has been taken.

3.10 An addendum to the CIL EVS was produced in September 2012. The addendum reviewed the potential impact upon viability of two local plans that have been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate for Examination in Public. Summarily, it was found that the new local plans had no impact on the viability of the CIL rates proposed. Further detail can be found in the background paper – CIL EVS Addendum – 2012.

3.11 The process followed in creating a charging schedule and the results for the borough are examined further in the following chapters.

5 Page 220 4. Creating a charging schedule

Infrastructure Need vs. Viability 4.1 The CIL IDS demonstrates that in order to complete every identified infrastructure project that is scheduled for the CIL period, the council will need to generate through CIL the amount of: £70.36m

4.2 The council have then divided £70.36m by the development floorspace (sqm) that is proposed in the borough during the charging period and will be liable for CIL (calculated using the councils housing trajectory and industry standard assumptions). This formula calculates the required CIL rate per sqm of development in order to fund the infrastructure necessary. The rate is as follows:

£269 / sqm

4.3 A CIL rate will be considered unreasonable and unjustifiable if the cumulative monetary gain over the CIL period exceeds the total funding that is required to deliver infrastructure in that period. In the case of Lewisham, this will mean that a CIL rate of over £269 will be considered inappropriate.

4.4 The investigative work undertaken to produce the CIL EVS demonstrates clearly that a CIL rate of £269 is not viable in Lewisham and therefore CIL will not fund all the infrastructure that may be necessary. This is not an unusual situation given that the CIL charging period is several years away. The council will consider a number of options outside of CIL to fill this gap and will need to carefully consider how projects are prioritised.

Differential rates 4.5 The CIL regulations (regulation 13) allow for a local charging authority to create a charging schedule with multiple levies. The CIL rate may be differentiated by geographical area and/or by the type of development.

4.6 In order to be comprehensive the EVS analysed viability of schemes across the borough utilising data that was geographically divided by postcode area. Additionally, multiple development types were assessed including Residential (C3), Retail (A1 and A1 large), Offices (B1) and Hotels (C1).

6 Page 221 4. Creating a charging schedule

4.7 The results of the CIL Economic Viability Study demonstrate that in Lewisham there are some disparities between the “affordable CIL rates” for different parts of the borough and also between residential and non-residential development. It is clear that if an average CIL rate were used across the whole borough, some areas and types of building would become unviable for development, whilst other areas and building types would provide considerably less CIL contribution than they potentially could. Given this situation the council decided to consider where there was the need for variable rates.

4.8 Whilst it has been prudent for the council to consider setting a number of differential rates for CIL, it has also been important that this was undertaken with a common sense approach. The Council wish to avoid a CIL charging schedule that is over- complex and therefore it is important that the concept of using variable rates for different areas and development types is used in moderation.

Setting a proposed rate 4.9 The results of the viability model meant that setting rates for commercial development was relatively simple. For non-residential uses it was found that viability did not change geographically across the borough, therefore one rate could be set for the whole borough for each development type. Additionally, the evidence demonstrated that both retail (A1) and hotel (C1) uses could afford a very similar level of CIL of £80 / sqm. The exceptions to the rule for non-residential development are business, general industrial and storage and distribution uses (B1, B2, B8) which showed poor viability and could not afford to pay CIL. As a result of the evidence available, B uses were given a £0 / sqm rate and all other non-residential uses were given a rate of £80 / sqm.

4.10 The evidence for residential development is somewhat more complicated as the viability of housing schemes is not consistent across the borough. The postcode related data highlighted a general increase in house prices from south to north through the borough and a corresponding increase in development viability levels. This meant that there was a need to explore the possibility of having multiple rates for residential development.

7 Page 222 4. Creating a charging schedule

4.11 Initially the evidence suggested that three different rates of £100 / sqm in the north of the borough, £70 / sqm in the centre and £30 / sqm in the south would be appropriate. However further investigation suggested that the £30 / sqm rate could be erroneous. Catford Town Centre was proved to hold more value than it’s surrounding postcode area (SE6) and was in fact aligned with the central £70 / sqm zone. It was therefore removed from the southern zone and added to the central zone. Analysis of the remaining £30 / sqm zone following the removal of Catford town centre revealed that there were no sites of 10 or more units expected to be delivered in the CIL charging period. 10 units is the threshold under which no affordable housing provision is required to be provided. Without the commitment to supply affordable housing affecting viability, the EVS model showed that housing throughout the southern zone could afford over £70 / sqm. This eliminated the purpose for the £30 / sqm zone and it was therefore removed from the CIL schedule.

4.12 The resulting CIL charging schedule has two residential rates of £100 / sqm for the north of the borough, £70 / sqm for the central and southern parts of the borough and £80 / sqm for non-residential uses boroughwide (excluding B use which is £0 / sqm).

4.13 The council feel they have found an appropriate balance between the positives and negatives of using differential rates. Where there is strong viability evidence to suggest that a variable rate is necessary, the council have embraced it, but have not sought the overuse of multiple rates where the impact is modest to avoid a burdensome system.

4.14 The formal rates and boundaries are shown in the following section of this report.

8 Page 223 5. The proposed CIL

The rate 5.1 Table 5.1 below details the CIL rates that are proposed for the London Borough of Lewisham by the council for the period to commence at latest on 1 st April 2014 until 31 st March 2019.

Table 5.1: CIL rates

Geographical Category A Category B Category C zones

Zone 1 (see map) £100 / sqm £80 / sqm £0 / sqm Zone 2 (see map) £70 / sqm £80 / sqm £0 / sqm

Category A = Use class C3 Category B = All other use classes Category C = Use class B

Geographical zones 5.2 The two CIL payment zones have been created along current postcode boundaries in order to make use of an existing system of geographical division that is already utilised within the development industry. Table 5.2 contains the list of postcodes that are subject to the payment of CIL grouped into the two previously arranged zones and Maps 5.1 and 5.2 illustrate the table. Please note that it is only development within the boundaries of the stated postcodes and the London Borough of Lewisham boundary that is liable for this CIL.

Table 5.2: CIL payment zones (postcodes)

Zone 1 SE3, SE8, SE10 & SE16

Zone 2 BR1, BR3, SE4, SE6, SE9, SE12, SE13, SE14, SE15, SE23 & SE26

9 Page 224 5. The proposed CIL

Map 5.1: CIL payment zones (postcodes)

10 Page 225 5. The proposed CIL

Map 5.2: Zone 1 Detail

11 Page 226 5. The proposed CIL

Exceptions and exemptions 5.3 There are a number of developments that are exempt from paying CIL, as described in the Government regulations, part 6. The council have the right to adopt further exceptional circumstances relief, however the setting of relief schemes is not part of establishing a charging schedule and therefore is not dealt with in this document.

5.4 In the draft charging schedule, B uses have been granted a CIL rate of £0 / sqm, but it should be noted that this is based upon the economic viability of such developments and is not an exception to CIL.

Rates and Indexing 5.5 As detailed in the CIL Regulation 40, the proposed CIL rates will be subject to yearly adjustment in line with the All-in Tender Price Index which is published from time to time by the Building Cost Information Service of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. The council will administer this adjustment annually.

Income for delivering infrastructure 5.6 The Council have calculated that the introduction of a CIL charge at the rates proposed in this report will produce an income of approximately £20m over the CIL charging period to support the delivery of infrastructure in the borough. This is less than the £70m set out by the CIL IDS as required to fund infrastructure. The funding gap is an expected occurrence given the time until the implementation of the projects assessed. The council will continue to work with public, private and voluntary sources to seek funding and assistance in ensuring the delivery of all the infrastructure projects in the CIL IDS.

5.7 It is set out in CIL Regulation 61 that authorities may use up to 5% of the CIL income to support the administration of the CIL system. The council will monitor costs and use the appropriate proportion of funding required to meet expenses outlaid.

Monitoring and review schedule 5.8 The Council will monitor CIL through the Local Plan Annual Monitoring Report (AMR). In the event of significant changes in circumstances, the Council will assess the need to review the CIL charging schedule and will internally review the background papers regarding infrastructure delivery and economic viability at least biennially. A new charging schedule will be produced if the evidence requires so and as a minimum will need to be re-examined by April 2019.

12 Page 227 6. Testing the charging schedule

6.1 There are a number of key tests that need to be levied against the proposed rate to ensure it is equitable, justifiable and viable. Table 5.3 lists each test and then a brief statement that describes how the draft charging schedule and the accompanying evidence base have tackled the requirements of each.

Table 5.3: Rate tests Test Response

The development plan Is the CIL based upon Yes. The Council consider that the local development plan is up to date. an up to date The Core Strategy was adopted in June 2011 and the remaining Local development plan? Plans are progressing to submission for examination in public during 2012/13. Additionally, The London Plan was adopted in July 2011.

The evidence base Is the evidence base 1) 1) Yes. The evidence base contains the CIL IDS which is based upon the robust, 2) appropriate Infrastructure Delivery Plan that was found sound in supporting the Core and 3) proportionate? Strategy. Further, the economic viability evidence base has been completed using an independent respected consultancy with experience and expertise in the subject. It utilises industry standard base data and justified analysis and conclusions.

2) Yes. The evidence uses the most appropriate sources of information that are available to the council to inform the charging schedule.

3) Yes. Where possible the council have used existing sources of information that have previously supported it’s local development plan. For the economic viability evidence it was felt necessary and proportionate to seek expert advice from an external source.

Need Is there proof of a gap in The CIL IDS identifies a large number of projects that require partly or funding for infrastructure wholly funding by CIL across many different forms of infrastructure. The in the CIL period? monetary value of the identified gap is sizeable, reaching over £70m.

13 Page 228 6. Testing the charging schedule

Test Response

Does the proposed CIL No. Funding required for infrastructure exceeds the anticipated income rate generate more generated through CIL, therefore the rate of CIL is not unreasonable. income than is required Evidence shown demonstrates that a CIL rate of over £260 / sqm would to fund the identified be required to meet the funding gap, whereas viability ensures that the infrastructure rates for Lewisham will not exceed £100 / sqm. requirements of the borough?

Viability Will the imposition of the No. The economic viability of development across the borough will, on proposed CIL the whole, be unaffected by the imposition of CIL, which forms a very unreasonably affect the small percentage of development costs. The council acknowledge that viability of development there may be occasions where individual schemes which are on the cusp (taken as a whole) of viability may be affected. However the CIL EVS undertaken has given across the borough? the council full assurance that the CIL rate set is at an appropriate level and will remain robust over the CIL period. Therefore the council consider that the burden of CIL will not be detrimental to the general growth agenda of the borough, as outlined in the Core Strategy.

Viability vs. Need If need is so great, why The council feel that an appropriate balance has been found between the is the CIL not higher? great need for infrastructure in the borough and the desire to ensure that development and the councils growth agenda are not unduly harmed.

Is the Lewisham CIL The rate in Lewisham is necessarily different to other boroughs and rate different to other authorities in order to reflect the local circumstances. However, the boroughs / authorities? proposed rates are similar to those put forward by other London boroughs with a similar economic profile to that of Lewisham. The suggested rates for Lewisham are therefore considered as appropriate.

State Aid Does any part of the CIL No. The proposed CIL rates have been selected on the basis of need contravene state aid and viability. No discount or ‘aid’ has been used in the CIL schedule. rules? Some rates for different uses are simply lower than others (or zero) as a response to the appropriate available evidence gathered. To continue the consistent approach, boundaries for the geographical zones have been based upon postcode areas to reflect the evidence sources used to inform the economic viability testing.

14 Page 229 7. Responding to the consultation

The Council would like you to get involved with the production of the CIL by telling us what you think of the draft charging schedule. All comments received will be presented to the independent examiner who will consider them alongside the Council’s proposed charging schedule.

How do I get involved?

Web Ideally we would like you to provide your comments on-line against the relevant sections of this document at the following address http://consult.lewisham.gov.uk/portal

E-mail [email protected] with “CIL draft charging schedule” as the subject.

Post Planning Policy London Borough of Lewisham 5th Floor, Laurence House 1 Catford Road Catford SE6 4SW

If you would like to speak to the Planning Policy Team about this report, please telephone us on 020 8314 7400.

Please send comments by: 5pm on XX/XX/XX. It may not be possible to take account of comments that are received after this date.

15 Page 230 8. Next steps

8.1 Following the consultation period for the draft charging schedule, the council will present the draft charging schedule, the evidence base and the consultation representations received to an independent examiner. It is anticipated, that if an Examination in Public is required, this will take place in the spring of 2013.

16 Page 231 Agenda Item 11

COUNCIL

Report Title Allocation of Seats to Political Groups on the Council

Key Decision Item No.

Ward

Contributors Chief Executive (Head of Business & Committee)

Class Part 1 Date: November 28 2012

1. Summary

This report sets out a revised proposed allocation of seats on committees to political groups on the Council following a by-election and a revision to a group status and asks the Council to agree to that proposal.

2. Purpose

The purpose of this report is to comply with the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, which requires the allocation of seats on committees in accordance with the level of representation of political groups on the Council as a whole.

3. Background

Section 15 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 places a duty on the Council to review the representation of political groups on its committees where the members of the Council are split into different political groups. There is a particular duty to conduct this review at the Annual General Meeting or as soon as practicable after that.

The Act requires that the Council should allocate seats on committees in accordance with the following principles:-

• That not all the seats are allocated to the same group

• That the majority of the seats are allocated to the group which has the majority of seats on the Council

• Subject to the 2 principles above, the number of seats on the total of all the ordinary committees allocated to each political group bears the same proportion to the proportion on full Council

• Subject to the 3 principles above, the number of seats on each committee of the authority allocated to each group bears the same proportion to the proportion on full Council.

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\0\8\7\ai00004780\$cuvsp0wo.docPage 232 Once the allocations to political groups have been determined, it is the duty of the Council to exercise the power to make appointments to that committee to give effect to the nominations of the political groups concerned.

These political balance requirements also apply to the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and its sub committees (select committees and business panels).

The Act also provides that the Council can make arrangements other than those complying with the political balance requirements if those arrangements are approved without any member of the authority voting against them.

Changes to the law embodied in the Local Government & Public Involvement in Health Act 2007 mean that the elected Mayor is not to be taken into account for the allocation of seats on politically balanced committees to the different party groups.

4. Proposed arrangements

The table attached at Appendix 1 shows the proposals for the Council’s ordinary Committees. Changes are being suggested to reflect the result of the Whitefoot by-election and the notification to the Proper Office that the Conservative Party no longer had the required minimum number of Councillors to sustain a political group.

Lewisham’s Constitution provides that the Council will appoint one overview and scrutiny committee consisting of all members of the Council who are not members of the Executive provided that this composition complies with the political balance requirements of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989. If that is not possible or if there is not unanimous agreement at the Annual General Meeting to such arrangements in any year, Article 6 provides that the Council will decide on the composition of the Committee so as to give the widest possible membership to the committee, but excluding members of the Executive. The Council could agree, with no-one voting against, to include all non-executive members on the overview and scrutiny committee. In such circumstances, as the Mayor has invited 9 Labour councillors to serve with him in the Cabinet, there would be 45 members of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee as follows:-

Labour 32 Liberal Democrat 11 Conservative 1 Green 1

An alternative, creating the largest possible proportionate non-executive committee, would be to reduce the size of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee to 41 and representation on it would be:-

Labour 32 Liberal Democrat 9

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\0\8\7\ai00004780\$cuvsp0wo.docPage 233 The select committees, which are effectively sub committees of the main Overview and Scrutiny Committee under the Constitution, have to have between 7 and 11 members. To achieve political balance the proposal is for the six select committees to continue to have 10 members each.

5. Constitution Working Party

The composition of the Constitution Working Party was revised in June 2006 and the constitution provides that this should consist of one representative of each political group and six or the smallest number higher, of councilors required to ensure the political composition of the Council is reflected.

6. Appointments Committee

The composition of the Appointments Committee was revised in January 2011 and the Constitution provides that this should consist of the Chair of Overview & Scrutiny, and two such executive members as the Mayor, as Leader of the largest political group, may nominate on a meeting by meeting basis, and two or the smallest higher number of non-executive members required to ensure that the political composition of the Council is reflected.

7. Council Urgency Committee

The composition of the Urgency Committee was revised in June 2010 and the Constitution provides that this should consist of the Chair of Council, the the Deputy Mayor, one member of the Executive other than the Mayor, the Chair of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee and 2, or the smallest number higher of Councillors required to ensure the political balance of the Council is reflected.

8. Other Committees

In addition to the bodies referred to above, Article 9 of the Constitution also provides for the establishment of 3 Planning Committees, a Strategic Planning Committee, a Licensing Committee, a Licensing (Supplementary) Committee, a Pensions Investment Committee, a Health & Safety Committee, an Elections Committee and an Audit Panel with the Terms of Reference set out in that Article. No changes to the composition or Terms of Reference are proposed and the council is asked to make appointments to those committees as set out in the Council’s Constitution.

9. Chairs of Overview and Scrutiny Select Committees

The Constitution provides in Paragraph 8 of Section E Overview & Scrutiny Procedure Rules that the Chairs and Vice Chairs of the Overview & Scrutiny Select Committees will be allocated in accordance with the proportion of seats held by the political groups on the Council.

10. Legal Implications

The legal implications are contained in the body of the report. The political balance requirements of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 do not apply to the Mayor and Cabinet. There is no legal requirement for the d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\0\8\7\ai00004780\$cuvsp0wo.docPage 234 Chairs or Vice Chairs of any committee to be reserved for members of any particular group, though if this provision is reflected in the Constitution, it will apply.

11. Financial implications

There are no specific implications arising from this report

12. Recommendations

Members are asked to:

(i) approve the proposals in this report in relation to the allocation of seats on ordinary committees as shown in Appendix 1; (ii) agree the size of, and allocation of seats on the overview and scrutiny committee and its select committees; (iii) agree the composition of the Constitution Working Party, (iv) agree the composition of the Appointments Committee; (v) agree the composition of the Council Urgency Committee

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\0\8\7\ai00004780\$cuvsp0wo.docPage 235

COUNCIL MEETING Appendix 1 to Item 11

POLITICAL BALANCE

Lab. Lib. Dem. Cons. Green

41 (75.93%) 11 (20.37%) 1 (1.85%) 1 (1.85%)

Committee Total Lab. Lib. Dem. Cons. Actual Actual Actual Planning (A) 10 8 2 Planning (B) 10 8 2 Planning (C) 10 8 2 Strategic Planning 10 8 2 Licensing 10 8(+1) 2 (-1) Licensing 10 8(+1) 2 (-1) (Supplementary) Pensions Investment 8 6(+1) 2 (-1) Health & Safety 6 5(+1) 1 (-1) Elections 6 5(+1) 1(-1) Audit Panel 6 5(+1) 1(-1)

Committee Total Lab. Lib. De m. Cons. Constitution W.P. 10 8(+1) 2 (-1) Appointments 6 5(+1) 1(-1) - Council Urgency 6 5(+1) 1(-1) - Standards 10 8(+1) 2 (-1)

Overview & Scrutiny

The numbers for Overview and Scrutiny below assume that the Mayor invites 9 members of the Labour Group to serve with him in the Cabinet

Total Lab. Lib. Dem. Cons. Green Overview & Scrutiny 45 32 11 1 1 Committee (if all non-executive members on O&S) Overview & Scrutiny 41 32 9 - - Committee (if balanced)

Total Lab. Lib. Dem. Cons. Overview & 10 8(+1) 2 (-1) Scrutiny Business Panel Overview & 10 8(+1) 2 (-1) Scrutiny Education Business Panel

Page 236

Select Committees

Healthier Communities 10 8 2 - Children & Young 10 8(+1) 2 (-1) People Public Accounts 10 8(+1) 2 (-1) Safer & Stronger 10 8 2 Communities Sustainable 10 8(+1) 2(-1) - Development Housing 10 7 3 -

Overview & Scrutiny Proportionality Overview & Scrutiny Proportionality (45 Members) (41 Members)

Lab. Lib Dem Cons Green Lab Lib Dem Cons

32 11 1 1 32 9 - (71.11%) (24.44%) (2.22%) (2.22%) (78.04%) (21.95%)

NOTES

1. Planning Committees A, B and C must include no more than 1 member from each Council ward.

2. Strategic Planning Committee shall comprise the Chairs of Planning Committees A, B and C, 5 other Planning Committee members and 2 members of the Cabinet.

3. The membership of the Licensing Committee and Licensing Supplementary Committee shall be identical.

4. The Elections Committee must have at least three non-Executive Councillors.

5. The Standards Committee membership was revised by the Council in June 2012 in accordance with the requirements of the Localism Act 2011.

6. The Constitution Working Party shall comprise of 1 representative of each political group and six other Councillors.

7. Appointments Committee consists of the Chair of Overview & Scrutiny Committee, 2 Cabinet members appointed on a meeting by meeting basis and 2 non-Executive members.

8. The Council Urgency Committee consists of the Chair of Council, the Deputy Mayor, one member of the Executive other than the Mayor, the Chair of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee and 2 other Councillors.

Page 237 Agenda Item 12

COUNCIL

Report Title Appointment of independent members of the Standards Committee

Key Decision No Item No.

Ward

Contributors Chief Executive (Head of Business & Committee)

Class Part 1 Date: November 28 2012

1. Summary

This report recommends the appointment of Hannah Le Vay and Matthew Hill as members of the Standards Committee.

2. Purpose

The purpose of this report is to ensure that vacant independent member places on the Council’s Standards Committee are filled.

3. Recommendation

That Matthew Hill and Hannah Le Vay be appointed to serve as independent members of the Standards Committee in addition to Gill Butler, Leslie Thomas, David Roper-Newman and Cathy Sullivan who have served as independent members of the Committee to date

4. Background

4.1 On June 28 2012, the Council considered a report which dealt with proposed amendments to the Council’s Constitution largely as a result of the implementation of the Localism Act 2011. On that date, among other things the Council resolved that the Standards Committee should consist of 12 members, 6 of whom should be councillors and 6 independent members.

4.2 The composition of the Committee now reflects the make up of the Committee prior to the changes introduced by the Localism Act. However, there has been one long standing vacancy for an independent member and a further vacancy was created on the appointment of Sally Hawkins, (who previously chaired the Committee), to fulfil the statutory role of Independent Person, who must be consulted if it is proposed that action be taken by the Standards Committee in relation to an allegation of breach of the Code of Conduct. As such, she is not and cannot by law be, a member of the Committee.

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\8\7\7\ai00004778\$ibvlgsk1.doc Page 238 4.3 Though there is no longer any formal requirement to do so, the Council placed an advert on its website inviting people to apply to be appointed as an independent member on the Standards Committee. Two candidates were interviewed by Councillor Mallory, with the assistance of the Monitoring Officer. Both candidates are now recommended for appointment to the Committee.

4.4 Brief details of the 2 candidates appears at Appendix 1.

5. Financial implications

Co-optees on the Standards Committee receive an allowance of £600 per annum. This amount can be contained within existing budgets.

6. Legal implications

Appointments to Committees are a matter for full Council. These appointments will complete the complement on the Standards Committee. The changes brought in by the Localism Act 2011 in respect of the ethical framework have been the subject of a full report to Council. The most significant one in this context is that the independent members of the Standards Committee will no longer have formal voting rights, as the special provisions allowing this have been repealed.

7. Equalities implications

There are no specific implications, though members are reminded of their duty to have regard to their duty eliminate unlawful discrimination harassment and victimisation of those with protected characteristics. They are also under a duty to advance equality of opportunity between people who share protected characteristics and those who do not, and to foster good relations between those groups. The protected characteristics are age, race, gender, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, religion or belief and sexual orientation.

8. Crime and Disorder implications

The entire ethical framework is designed to promote behaviour of the highest standard, and the Standards Committee has a statutory duty to promote this.

9. Human Rights implications

There are no particular implications associated with this report.

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\8\7\7\ai00004778\$ibvlgsk1.doc Page 239 APPENDIX 1

HANNAH LE VAY

Hannah Le Vay is a local resident who originated from Wales and studied Classics at UCL. She is a qualified ACCA and CIPFA accountant. She has over 20 years experience in local authority corporate finance. She has worked in partnership with a number of public sector organisations , and has been a school governor as well as an attendee at Lewisham Adult Education Centres.

MATTHEW HILL

Matthew Hill is a Deptford resident who has lived in the borough for over 5 years. He obtained a first class degree in English Literature from Exeter University in 2003. He is a qualified financial advisor and is a volunteer mentor for ex-offenders in Lewisham.

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\8\7\7\ai00004778\$ibvlgsk1.doc Page 240 Agenda Item 13

COUNCIL

Report Title ACTION TAKEN BY THE CHAIR OR VICE-CHAIR OF COUNCIL UNDER RULE 19 OF SECTION E OF THE CONSTITUTION Key Decision no Item No.

Ward n/a

Contributors Chief Executive (Head of Business & Committee)

Class Part 1 Date: November 28 2012

. ACTION TAKEN BY THE CHAIR OF COUNCIL UNDER RULE 19 OF SECTION E OF THE CONSTITUTION

1. The Chair of Council (the Vice-Chair in respect of the first exemption) agreed under the urgency procedure set out in Rule 19 of Section E of the Constitution, that the matters listed below should be treated as matters of urgency and not subject to call- in. This determination not to subject a decision taken by the Executive Director for Resources and Regeneration and a Mayoral decision to scrutiny was made by the Chair of Council as the delay in considering the item of business would have prejudiced the interests of the Council.

Date Title Reason for Urgency

August 6 2012 Asset Rationalisation A decision made by the Executive Director Programme - Contract for Resources & Regeneration was Award for Improvement exempted from consideration by of Welfare Facilitie s in the Overview & Scrutiny Business Panel Laurence House on September 25 as queries raised by bidders prolonged the tendering exercise past the originally anticipated deadline in July. Owing to the significant lead-in time required on the order of materials for the health and safety upgrade works, waiting until scrutiny in September before awarding the contract would have made the delivery of the upgrade works impossible. This implication would have been that we would not have been able to relocate staff from the Town Hall and be on target to achieve the agreed budget savings on the mothballing of the Town Hall.

September 18 Response to Thames A decision made by the Mayor at Mayor & 2012 Water Section 48 Cabinet on October 3 was exempted from Publicity on the Scrutiny by the Business Panel on October Thames Tideway 16 as Thames Water imposed a Tunnel consultation response deadline of October d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\5\7\7\ai00004775\$qsrn0w4l.docPage 241 5. Pre decision scrutiny of the Thames Water proposals did take place at the Business Panel on September 25.

November 15 Article 4 Direction A decision made by the Mayor at Mayor & 2012 Catford Bridge Tavern Cabinet on November 14 was exempted from consideration by the Overview & Scrutiny Business Panel on November 20 as the report contained a recommendation to put in place with immediate effect an Article 4 Direction to remove the right to change the use of the Catford Bridge Tavern from a pub to a shop or other commercial use, without applying for planning permission first. If the normal post decision Scrutiny process was followed, a change of use could take place after the Mayor's decision and before the Direction took legal effect. This would lead to the loss of the community facility represented by the pub, and make the Article 4 Direction ineffective.

RECOMMENDATION that the actions taken by the Chair and Vice-Chair of Council be noted.

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\5\7\7\ai00004775\$qsrn0w4l.docPage 242 Agenda Item 14

COUNCIL

Report Title Motion in the name of Councillor Hall to be seconded by Councillor Foxcroft.

Key Decision Item No.

Ward

Contributors Chief Executive (Head of Business & Committee)

Class Part 1 Date: November 28 2012

“Lewisham Council notes with great concern the recommendations published by the Trust Special Administrator on October 29.

In order to remain a service fit for the local people it serves, Lewisham Hospital must retain a full admitting A&E service and a full obstetric and co-located midwife-led birthing unit.

Council believes Lewisham Hospital is an example of well-maintained hospital with excellent links to Lewisham Council, providing a locally focussed service of genuine quality for residents and that the closure of the A&E will also place unsustainable pressure on neighbouring services not least the Queen Elizabeth in Woolwich.

Council is calling on the Trust Special Administrator to change his proposals and remove any recommendations which would result in reductions in the services provided to residents of Lewisham by Lewisham Hospital.

Lewisham Council further notes that it passed a motion on 26 September 2012 pledging to protect the NHS.

The Council resolves to actively campaign with residents to make clear to the Trust Special Administrator and the Secretary of State their opposition to these damaging proposals.”

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\1\8\7\ai00004781\$wyghwzgc.docPage 243 Agenda Item 15

COUNCIL

Report Title Motion in the name of Councillor Britton to be seconded by Councillor Maslin Key Decision Item No.

Ward

Contributors Chief Executive (Head of Business & Committee)

Class Part 1 Date: November 28 2012

“Council is disappointed to note the Government's proposals to erode Trade Union Facility time in public sector organisations. As the public sector continues to be forced to make major changes to the way services are delivered in addition to changes to pay, pensions and other workers’ rights and benefits it is more important than ever that locally elected lay trade union officials are able to properly represent the workforce.

Given the harsh economic climate that the country is currently in, the need for effective and high-quality representation for people at work has rarely been greater.

Lewisham Council recognises that having effective workforce representation helps both employers and employees to manage change effectively. The Council as an employer should do all it can to ensure that its employees have proper access to trade union representation despite the Government’s proposals otherwise.”

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\2\8\7\ai00004782\$gprcuw52.docPage 244 Agenda Item 16

COUNCIL

Report Title Motion in the name of Councillor Ibitson to be seconded by Councillor Addison Key Decision Item No.

Ward

Contributors Chief Executive (Head of Business & Committee)

Class Part 1 Date: November 28 2012

“Council notes that the process is currently underway to retender the Thameslink and SouthEastern rail franchises, which include crucial rail links for Lewisham residents.

Council calls upon the Mayor to write to the Department for Transport urging ministers to consider options for increasing the frequency and destinations of services along the Catford Loop, which serves residents in Crofton Park, Catford, Bellingham and Beckenham Hill. This line is one of a very few in inner London to only have a two trains per hour service. The franchise retender process offers a rare opportunity for a significant service recast.

Council hopes that this opportunity to address this significant service gap for a large number of Lewisham commuters will be not be squandered by ministers.”

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\3\8\7\ai00004783\$1cfqaee4.docPage 245 Agenda Item 17

COUNCIL

Report Title Motion in the name of Councillor Brooks to be seconded by Councillor Maines Key Decision Item No.

Ward

Contributors Chief Executive (Head of Business & Committee)

Class Part 1 Date: November 28 2012

“This Council reaffirms its support for the ‘Restart the Heart Campaign’ and pledges to become a HeartSafe Borough.

Council recognises the importance of promoting heart health among Lewisham’s residents and calls upon the Mayor of Lewisham to sign up to the British Heart Foundation’s ‘Heart Town’ campaign and make Lewisham a Heart Safe Borough.

Council calls upon Council officers to ensure that:

Defibrillators are placed in all secondary schools in Lewisham All defibrillators in Council owned or managed buildings are clearly signposted. Lewisham Council’s own website lists the location of every defibrillator in the borough. Lewisham Council promotes Heart Week.

Council notes with concern that no London overground station in Lewisham has a defibrillator and urges the Mayor of Lewisham to write to the London Ambulance Service formally requesting that defibrillators are provided to all London Overground train stations in our borough.”

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\4\8\7\ai00004784\$q23oet2f.docPage 246 Agenda Item 18

COUNCIL

Report Title Motion in the name of Councillor Maines to be seconded by Councillor Feakes Key Decision Item No.

Ward

Contributors Chief Executive (Head of Business & Committee)

Class Part 1 Date: November 28 2012

“This Council notes its strong opposition to the Trust Special Administrator’s draft recommendations.

Council recognises the essential service that University Lewisham Hospital’s A&E and Maternity Units provide; acknowledges the dedication of Lewisham Hospital staff and notes the strength of local public opinion in Lewisham on this issue.

Council expresses its collective view that:

• The proposed merger of QEH and Lewisham Hospital should be subject to proper consultation and debate. Council notes with concern that there are only three official public consultation meetings in the borough. • The appointment of a joint Chief Executive to both Lewisham Hospital and QEH is premature. • University of Lewisham Hospital Trust should not be drawn into the viability of the QEH and their debt. • The TSA's draft proposals have not undertaken sufficient work into the capacity needs of A&E facilities needed in South East London and have taken no account of waiting time now or after closures. • The TSA's draft proposals do not properly take in account the impact on non health trust providers. Council acknowledges the likely impact on London Transport in relation to transport links; the London Ambulance Service on transfer times and its implications for Lewisham Council's Social Care and discharges.

Council calls upon the Government to deal with the South London Healthcare’s historic debt and urges the Chancellor of the Exchequer to buy out South London Healthcare Trust’s PFI rather than spread this debt across South London.

Council calls upon the Chief Executive to write to the Trust Special Administrator and to the Secretary of State expressing this Council’s view that Lewisham’s A&E and Maternity Services should remain open in their current form.”

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\5\8\7\ai00004785\$1l4ybinn.doc Page 247 Agenda Item 19

COUNCIL

Report Title Motion in the name of Councillor Fletcher to be seconded by Councillor Clutten Key Decision Item No.

Ward

Contributors Chief Executive (Head of Business & Committee)

Class Part 1 Date: November 28 2012

“Council expresses its support for and appreciation of the work carried out by the London Fire Brigade in Lewisham.

Council notes that the fire brigade attended 116,022 incidents in Lewisham during 2011/12, including 27,029 fires, 33,085 special services and 55,908 false alarms.

Council expresses its concern that the Mayor of London has imposed cuts of £65 million (about 15%) over the next two years on the London Fire Brigade and that a document leaked to the BBC lists the following 17 fire stations threatened with closure: Acton, Belsize, Bow, Clapham, Clerkenwell, Downham, Islington, Kensington, Kingsland, Knightsbridge, New Cross, Peckham, Silvertown, Southwark, Westminster, Whitechapel and Woolwich.

Council acknowledges the invaluable service that New Cross and Downham Fire Stations provide and notes with particular concern the inclusion of these two stations on this list.

Council supports the retention of Downham and New Cross fire stations in Lewisham and believes that the closure of any Lewisham stations would be unacceptable to local residents and could compromise fire safety.

Council condemns the Mayor of London for proposing reckless cuts to the London fire budget without taking advice from senior fire officers as to the consequences.

Council requests the Chief Executive write to the Mayor of London with a copy to the Chair of LFEPA making this council’s position against the closure of New Cross and Downham Fire Stations clear.”

d:\moderngov\data\agendaitemdocs\6\8\7\ai00004786\$kzib15q1.docPage 248