QUESTION No. 1 Priority 1 LONDON BOROUGH of LEWISHAM COUNCIL MEETING 1 MARCH 2010 Question by Councillor Paschoud of the Cabinet

QUESTION No. 1

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

1 MARCH 2010

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

Question

What is Lewisham Council doing to attract the best graduates into our schools? What borough wide schemes are in place?

Lewisham is actively promoting the excellent 'Teach First' programme. Teach First is an independent charity founded to encourage top graduates, who wou ld not normally enter teaching, to teach for at least two years in challenging secondary schools. In partnership with supporters in both education and business, participants work to achieve Qualified Teacher Status during their first year as well as ‘learn to lead’ through additional leadership development training. This programme combines excellent initial teacher training with volunteer coaching, networking opportunities and a bespoke leadership development programme. We have 11 Teach First graduates in o ur schools and this number will rise in the coming years.

Lewisham Borough Council has a dedicated stand at all of the London Teacher Training Universities Graduate Recruitment Fairs including: • Greenwich • St Mary’s • Roehampton • Goldsmiths • London Metropolitan • Kingston • Institute of Education Fairs provide the opportunity for direct face to face contact with all the graduate newly qualified teachers (NQTs) for the coming year and promote the opportunities and benefits of working at schools in Lewisham. We use a range of marketing material including a Lewisham branded stand plus promotional literature providing a range of information to new graduates on why Lewisham schools are the best places to start their career in teaching. The fairs are an opportunity t o promote what is on offer to NQTs in comparison to other Local Authorities and includes information on the high quality LA induction programme which we offer to NQTs and their mentors which has consistently high evaluation feedback.

Lewisham has a dedica ted NQT Talent Pool which allows all graduates who are working towards QTS to register their interest in working at a Lewisham school. The Talent Pool is promoted via the Lewisham website, the SLG website (see below), the NQT brochure and other marketing material, as well as face to face with visitors to the Lewisham stand at the Graduate Recruitment fairs. All Lewisham schools have access to this talent pool which they can search and select the best graduates with a view to recruiting them directly into their schools.

In addition to registering with Lewisham’s NQT Talent Pool, graduates are also encouraged to register for email alerts so they are informed whenever a suitable teaching vacancy is posted onto the Lewisham website.

Other marketing to gradu ates includes advertising in the January edition of Times Education Supplement ( TES ) First Appointments, a specialist TES publication which offers advice and information to new graduates interested in starting their career in teaching.

Lewisham actively p romotes the Housing Options scheme via the Lewisham website and at the Graduate Recruitment fairs, to assist in attracting the best graduates into Lewisham from outside the local area.

Lewisham offers advice to recruiting schools on effective advertising strategies to attract and recruit the best applicants in response to job advertisements.

Lewisham operates a dedicated email address teacher - [email protected] , which is advertised via the Lewisham Council website and used on all promotional literature, where graduates and all other members of the community can request further information on any aspect of becoming employed as a teacher in Lewisham’s schools.

Lewisham is a member of the South London Group – a consortium of 12 LAs in South London who work collaboratively to promote teaching and support new teaching graduates into the profession. A website is established where all new graduates can view infor mation about all South London Local Authorities offering posts including Lewisham www.southlondongroup.co.uk . This is jointly funded by each of the LAs and includes a budget for promotion and the attraction of new graduates into Sout h London schools.

Lewisham is a member of the Employment Based Routes Partnership Group where we promote the various employment based routes into teaching with London South Bank University ( LSBU ). Lewisham sits on the interview panel for selecting the best graduates to employment based routes. Lewisham schools have priority status in terms of the admissions process to LSBU and this scheme is promoted to Heads via the Schools Mailing.

SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION NO. 1

Councillor Paschoud

I am very please d with the comprehensive set of measures we have in place to attract good quality graduates. I do not think there is an interest. My eldest daughter is in fact doing a post -graduate teaching qualification at the moment. She has a placement in a Lewisham school. There is currently a placement in a Southwark school, but she does not want to work there. I am particularly interested in Councillor Massey’s reasoning why it is important that we attract high quality graduates, particularly science graduates, to Lewisham schools.

Councillor Massey

Councillor, you will be surprised to know that I am very keen to attract high quality science graduates to schools as well. I will heartily endorse that approach. Understanding , as I do , that your daughter is a ph ysics graduate, I am sure if she expresses an interest in working at schools there would be plenty of places she could apply for.

Bluntly, like it or not, we need the very best graduates in our schools. We need people who understand and who are enthusias tic about their subject. We do not want science graduates who think, for example, that there are any merits in homeopathy or astrology. I would ask serious questions if they were teaching science in our schools.

There are excellent examples of this. Fo r example, in Fairlawn , when I visited there the other week, the Headteacher explained about the way in which he links up the Institute of Education. He talks to the students on the courses there; more than just actually doing it through the Borough. Bri ndishe and Hither Green use the same approach.

You are right to highlight science graduates. The Sainsbury Review of Science and Innovation, a few years ago, said that governing bodies should use their powers to pay more, if necessary, to attract them. I actually think that is an entirely realistic policy. The Times last week carried a report in the same vein. Alan Smithers, at the University of Buckingham, has flagged up the problem. He notes that 50% of our inner London schools lack dedicated physi cs graduates. It is within the power of governing bodies to address this. I wish that more would. Bluntly, if you want the best teachers, you need people who understand their subject and who can be enthusiastic about it. Nothing else is good enough fo r the children in our schools. QUESTION No. 2

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

1 MARCH 2010

Question by Councillor Muldoon of the Deputy Mayor

Question

Could the Deputy Mayor provide an update on the Catford Stadium?

In 2004 English Partnerships , now part of the H omes and Communities Agency (HCA), purchased the Catford Stadium site, which was to be part of the London Wide Initiative scheme focused on the delivery of key worker hou sing . They subsequently engaged Countryside Properties PLC and Hyde Housing Association as development partners.

Planning permission was granted on 30 January 2009 for a scheme containing 589 residential units (split between roughly a third social rent ed, a third key worker and a third private accommodation), as well as 500 sq m of retail/commercial floorspace near the station and a 300 sq m Use Class D1 community centre. Part of the S106 required river naturalisation and creation of a public plaza betw een Catford and Catford Bridge Stations, and provision of a footbridge to Doggett Road.

Owing to the economic downturn the scheme was not considered financially viable . T he development consortium applied for government Kickstart funding in order to progr ess the development . They were however not successful and on 25 January 2010 the HCA wrote to Countryside informing them that they were disengaging from any London Wide Initiative sites including Catford Dogtrack.

The HCA as land owner is now considering how to take forward the development of the site. SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION NO. 2

Councillor Muldoon

What is the Deputy Mayor’s personal view of the situation? What action will she be taking to ensure that an appropriate development comes forward on this important site? Can I just advise that the people of Rushey Green expect a full and comprehensive answer tonight, please?

Deputy Mayor

I will certainly do my best for Councillor Muldoon and the residents of Rushey Green in giving as comprehensive an an swer as I can muster. What is important is that something happens on this site as soon as possible. Clearly, when you come into Catford, the overgrown nature of the site is an eyesore. It is a blight on our environment. In a borough like Lewisham, wher e we do not have a huge amount of land available, it is very important that we do get an appropriate development coming forward there.

I am obviously disappointed that this scheme cannot proceed as planned, but I do think there is an opportunity here to g o back to the drawing board. I am conscious that there was considerable concern amongst the local community about some elements of the design of the scheme. Perhaps this is a chance to get those things right. I will certainly be making it clear to the H omes and Communities Agency that we do want to see appropriate development there. We want any proposals that come forward to contain a considerable amount of affordable housing, knowing as we do how important this issue is. I would also like to see the s tations and the quality of the environment there improved.

I am actually meeting the Minister for Housing, John Healey, next week to put that case to him. QUESTION No. 3

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

1 MARCH 2010

Question by Councillor Ibitson of the Cabinet Member for Customer Services

Question

Please give the numbers of people living in temporary accommodation in Lewisham for each of the last four years?

The numbers in temporar y accommodation for the last 4 years are as follows: .

December December December December January 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2597 2589 1995 1329 1294

The numbers in temporary accommodation (TA) have reduced month on month since December 2007 and in 20 08/09, the reduction of 696,was the third largest drop in London. In percentage terms at 28% the reduction was the 6th most improved. This performance is being sustained, and as at the end of January the numbers in TA had reduced further to 1294 which is 20 below the target set in the Temporary Accommodation Reduction Plan agreed with the Department of Communities and Local Government ( CLG ).

SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION NO. 3

Councillor Ibitson

Obviously these figures show a significant reduction in the numb ers of people living in temporary accommodation. Congratulations to the officers and the staff in Housing Services who have been working on that. There is still some way to go; we cannot be complacent. I would like to ask Councillor Wise to please tell us what the target figure agreed by the Department for Communities and Local Government and Lewisham is for the Authority’s temporary accommodation reduction plan? Also, when is the target date?

Councillor Wise

We have worked very hard with our Housing Options centre. We have invested over £1 million into it. This is not only to improve the environment for people who go through the doors, but for the staff that work there. As you can see, we have really reduced the figures in temporary accommodation. We are looking for – and are on target for – a figure of 877 by December 2010. Officers and staff alike have worked very hard to achieve this. I can only congratulate them. Thank you for asking. QUESTION No. 4

Priorit y 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

1 MARCH 2010

Question by Councillor Nisbet of the Cabinet Member for Customer Services

Question

What was the result of the recent ballot for the Forest Hill/Perry Vale/Sydenham stock transfer?

Re ply

Forest Hill, Sydenham and Perry Vale

54.6% of eligible tenants voted in the ballot, of those voting 79.5% voted yes. London & Quadrant ( L&Q ) will invest £30.7m in the first five years following transfer and will achieve Decent Homes within 2 years o f transfer.

SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION NO. 4

Councillor Nisbet

Could the Cabinet member please tell us how many properties are involved in this most -welcome transfer and what improvements to their homes the residents can expect from London and Quadrant Hous ing Trust ?

Councillor Wise

This is a very welcome stock transfer. It is another milestone in our Decent Homes strategy. I welcome it. We are looking at something like 3,500 more homes that will achieve the Decent Homes standards. That will happen by 2012. Some of the improvements we are expecting – apart from the bathrooms and kitchens that are part of the Decent Homes standard – we are looking at an enhanced Decent Homes standard. There will be environmental improvements, which will include install ing entry phone systems, improving lighting, improving fencing and railing, and soft and hard landscaping. For me, one of the biggest benefits there is that tenants will be able to take part in the established community boards. This will give them a much greater involvement in their homes. Thank you. QUESTION No. 5

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

1 MARCH 2010

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

Question

What is the Cabinet Member doing to raise maths standards in Lewisham?

Raising attainment and closing achievement gaps is a key priority in the Children and Young People’s Plan. The focus of our work is to improve teachin g as well as to enable schools to use data more effectively to identify, track, intervene and support pupils and to ensure that teacher assessments are robust.

Additional support to schools is provided by Numeracy and Maths Officers who support teachers to use appropriate teaching strategies and interventions. School Improvement Partnership Board meetings in schools in challenging circumstances ensure that local authority monitoring , challenge and support is maintained on those schools where there is conc ern. There is also a sustained focus on middle leadership, ensuring that Heads of Maths are supported to identify accurately underperformance and know how to secure accelerated progress through appropriate tailored support. Targeted one -to -one tuition is made available to those pupils who are vulnerable to underachievement and require additional support.

The A* Academy for secondary schools was launched in December 2009. This programme, in partnership with Goldsmiths College, aims to increase the number o f A* grades in English, Maths and Science by giving targeted students and their parents the opportunity to engage in expert workshops and mentoring from Goldsmiths undergraduates. The performance of these students, currently in Year 10, is being closely mo nitored.

Several new strategies have been introduced in schools to raise attainment in maths across all key stages. In Key Stage 2 Ocean Maths is being introduced into 19 primary schools. Ocean Maths is a community based project which offers maths traini ng and workshops to parents and children. Free resource materials are provided for parents and children to work on together in the workshops and at home. Nintendo, maths passports and transition projects are being used in years 1 -7 to improve the profile o f maths and to further develop numeracy skills. Question level analysis in maths is being used, in Key Stages 3 and 4, to identify gaps in students’ individual knowledge in order to improve their understanding of specific mathematical concepts.

In additi on, new maths in service teacher training courses have been launched this year. Primary teachers from Lewisham schools are involved in the guided maths programme where expert leading maths teachers work with 2 other teachers to further develop their maths teaching and skills in the classroom. 10 maths teachers this year have embarked on a modular Master of Arts course with Kings University. The part time course is research based, looking at classroom practice and involves sharing mathematical knowledge wi th other colleagues in school.

SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION NO. 5

Councillor Smith

Thank you for your answer. I am pleased that we recognise that maths is a key skill. Do you think that these strategies will help to improve such critical skills as analysin g the difference in odds between Councillor Alexander – at 25:1 on of winning the East Lewisham election – and Councillor Pattisson – at 18:1 against? I make that 450:1 in Councillor Alexander’s favour. Do you think this will benefit the children of Lewi sham?

Councillor Massey

That is a very useful question you are asking, Councillor Smith. It relates very much to a specific part of question 1. I am absolutely sure that a larger number of our young people are more familiar with these aspects of statis tics and probability, and rightly so. When you are analysing things like election races, it is incredibly helpful to be aware of the likely outcomes. You might also extend it to things they have to tackle in later life, like budgets and whether or not 10 2 words is the right number of words for a budget amendment or whether you’d expect something with detail; whether a 0.1% change of a budget is worth debating or not. I think they are very well -versed in these arguments. QUESTION No. 6

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

1 MARCH 2010

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

Question

What are the latest figures for the number of additional reception classes that will be needed in the coming year in Lewisham? Has a decision been made on sites for these classes, and if not when is a decision expected? How many cases of siblings unable to attend the same school or site are likely to result fr om the pressure to find and fund sites for additional primary classes in Lewisham in the coming year?

The number of additional classes for which Lewisham is making preparations for delivery in the 2010 -11 academic year is 17 (510 children). Ther e cannot be absolute certainty that this number will be required because of inevitable uncertainty about the volume of late applications over the next 10 months. Lewisham has always experience d a large volume of late applications for Reception places betwee n February and December each year, bearing in mind that in each academic year there are 2 admission points of entry into schools for Reception children, one in September and one in January.

As of 14 February 2010 , 3710 First Preference applications had be en received for the 3156 Reception places available. This compares with 3446 applications received by this date last year . Late in -borough applications in 2009 -10 numbered 420 and have been around 400 for 3 years. If late applications are factored in fo r 2010 -11 at the same level, and an expected applications to acceptances “conversion” rate of 88% applied, this should result in an additional Borough -wide demand of 15 -16fe. If the uneven demand across localities is taken into account this could rise to 17 fe.

The Authority is still in negotiation with governing bodies on the location of schools and sites for these classes, with a deadline for agreement of mid - March 2010. The distribution of demand per primary places planning locality is as follows:

1. Syde nham/Forest Hill 6.5 classes 2. Lee Green 5.5 classes 3. Lewisham/Brockley/Telegraph Hill 2 classes 4. Catford/Bellingham/Grove Park 3 classes 5. Deptford/New Cross 1 class 6. Downham -1 class (surplus)

Not all of this demand can be met within localities, es pecially in Lee Green, but every effort is being made to provide locations for the extra classes that meet the needs of parents.

The Admission s criteria for all schools (Community, Voluntary Aided and Foundation) give priority to siblings in the event o f over -subscription. Therefore the only situation when a sibling would not gain entry would be in the unlikely event that the number of siblings exceeded the Planned Admission Number of the school. QUESTION No. 7

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

1 MARCH 2010

Question by Councillor Johnson of the Cabinet Member for Customer Services

Question

Although it may not be possible to give detailed information of the actual contracts can you spell out for residents what end use each of the key recyclable materials have once they have left the Materials Recovery Facility (MRF ) and what auditing and monitoring processes are in place to give Lewisham residents confidence that their materials are being properly recycled?

Each month the Council receives information from the Materials Recovery Facility as to the end destination of the materials. Due to market conditions this is subject to change, but in general the destinations are as follows :

• Aluminium – end destination is with Alutrade Ltd, UK . • Steel - end destination is Eurokey Recycling Ltd, UK . • Old Corrugated Cardboard - end destination is with Independent Waste Paper Processors Association (UK and export) . • Newspapers and Pamphlets - en d destination is with Veolia Environmental Services Singapore to Indonesia. • Mixed paper - end destination is with St Regis Paper UK. • Mixed Plastic Bottles - end destination is Closed Loop Recycling UK. • Glass – end destination is Berrymans UK.

In terms of auditing and monitoring regular contract meetings are held with the contractor and regular spot checks are carried out at the plant. Further , officers have arranged visits to the MRF for residents so they can see for themselves the process that takes place . The process is also detailed on the council ’s website. QUESTION No. 8

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

1 MARCH 2010

Question by Councillor Walton of the Mayor

Question

Following reports – an d government denials – that ministers are reviewing the 50 -year -old legal obligation of local authorities to provide library services, and that a decision is expected in the Spring, will you urgently draft a letter to ministers urging them not to end this duty and to clarify thei r intentions on it, and will the Mayor seek support and signatures for the letter from each of Lewisham’s party group leaders?

The Report of the Mayor’s Commission on Libraries and Learning in Lewisham, published in May 2009 , reaffirms the centrality of public libraries to the lives of Lewisham residents. The past three years have seen huge changes to the Borough’s Libraries. New or refurbished facilities have opened at Downham, Manor House and Forest Hill, self issue toget her with fundamental changes to working practices have delivered a considerable increase in issues and visits and new partnerships with other Council departments and third sector organisations.

In 2011 Torridon Rd Library will begin operating in partne rship with Early Years as a new Children’s Centre will be housed in the building. June 2011 will see the opening of the joint Tidemill School and Deptford Lounge building which will deliver a range of educational, community and cultural opportunities for a ll age groups and communities in the North of the Borough

The Council is not aware of any Government proposals to review the Public Library Act 1964. On December 1 st 2009, the Culture M inister , Margaret Hodge , launch ed “Empower, Inform, Enrich – The mod ernisation review of public libraries: a consultation document” .

The paper asks a number of questions in the context of the National and local Leadership of libraries, one of which reads

Do you think the current roles as defined for central and local gov ernment are still appropriate? Is the 1964 legislative framework still appropriate or does it need review? If so what changes would you like to see? Is there any value in central government having a more direct role in setting the vision and objectives for the library service or is the service better managed entirely at local level.

A report following the consultation is scheduled to be published in the Spring, but there are no current proposals either to conduct a review of the Act or to suppress the st atutory obligation on local authorities to provide a library service.

SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION NO. 8

Councillor Walton

The Mayor has referred to the actual report that we were talking about, the consultation document, which is entitled, ‘Empower, Inform, Enrich. The Modernisation Review of Public Libraries. A Consultation Document.’ He has also listed some of the particular questions that are in the document. However, the one that I am most interested in is question 20, which covers two particular poin ts. The first point it asks is: should the library remain as a statutory obligation, and would the removal of that obligation allow a greater flexibility for fundraising or different modes of operation? This quite clearly suggests that whilst there may n ot be a definitive question mark about the future of the libraries, there are certainly questions to be asked.

I will ask the Mayor again. If that does not count as a review – which I think it does – will you continue to invite the group leader to join y ou in writing to the minister to insist that the statutory duty does remain in place? Thank you.

Mayor

I never try to second guess what is in the minister’s mind, but I would be very surprised if at least the current minister did not share my commitment and your commitment to the provision of public libraries by local authorities. I would be happy to give you that assurance. QUESTION No. 9

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

1 MARCH 2010

Questi on by Councillor Keogh of the Deputy Mayor

Question

Will the council consider undertaking negotiations with LB Greenwich to retrieve the 18th Century clock from the Great Storehouse in the Deptford Royal Dockyard that was donated to the GLC and ended up in the Thamesmead Town Centre in the 80s (when Greenwich boundary included Convoy's Wharf) without due consideration to the fact that the people of Deptford were losing a valued local landmark? If successful would the council considering reinstalling the c lock tower somewhere prominently in the new Convoy's development?

The Council is in discussions with Hutchison Whampoa who now own the Convoys Wharf site , having acquired it from News International. Officers are aware of the history of the relocat ion of the clock and will be investigating the potential to return it to the site as part of the proposals for its development. QUESTION No. 10

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

1 MARCH 2010

Ques tion by Councillor Britton of the Deputy Mayor

Question

What proposals are being made for repairing roads damaged by ice and general wear and tear this winter?

A report was submitted to Mayor and Cabinet on the 24 February seeking prudential borr owing approval in order to fund the resurfacing of life expired carriageways and footways. This includes an allocation of £1.5m to resurface carriageways. Since the beginning of this financial year we have repaired thousands of individual potholes, funded from the Highways revenue budget.

As the snow was melting the Mayor had already instructed officers to prepare emergency proposals to deal with the effect of the weather conditions.

SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION NO. 10

Councillor Britton

Bearing in mind that we have had a really bad winter, and that winter is not yet over – I am aware of that – when will this report be presented, and how soon do you think it will be before there is a timetable of repairs and repairs actually start?

Deputy Mayor

I would cert ainly expect the review to come back from officers and be presented to members within the next four to six weeks. What I would say to Councillor Britton is that clearly a huge amount of work is already underway in repairing some of the damage that has tak en place as a result of the bad weather. I did ask Council officers, before this meeting, just to give me some indication of how the work that is being done compares to previous years. I have been told that, in January, we repaired 1,100 potholes. In Fe bruary, we repaired 1,700 potholes. When you compare this to the same month last year, we were repairing approximately 400 to 600. Significantly more work is taking place. This will be ongoing work.

The money that has been allocated for repair of the highways is £1.5 million. It is referred to in the answer to the question. It comes about through prudential borrowing. There is significant work that is going on. We will be looking very carefully at the outcome of the review that we are expecting sh ortly. QUESTION No. 11

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

1 MARCH 2010

Question by Councillor Hall of the Mayor

Question

What actions has the Mayor taken as a result of the motion relating to th e Winter Fuel Allowance passed at the last Council meeting?

Following the discussion at the last Council meeting I wrote to all residents on the 29 th January encouraging them to take advantage of the funding and other support available to people a ffected by cold weather and rising fuel bills. This letter was circulated with February’s Lewisham Life magazine.

In the first week of the magazine’s distribution the Council received 531 calls from residents. As a result of these calls: • 91 households ha ve been scheduled to receive insulation and heating improvements with grants ranging from £400 to £3,500 • 61% of callers were potentially eligible for energy companies’ social tariffs and were advised how they join these schemes saving up to 20% on their fu el bills • 82% of callers wanted the Council to continue to keep them informed of grants and other new energy efficiency initiatives

Callers were also advised on winter fuel payments, benefit entitlement, the Council’s handyperson scheme, the Government’s n ew boiler scrappage scheme, Lewisham Homes’ services, the smart meters loan scheme from Lewisham libraries, the Catford Energy Savers scheme and were given practical information on how to save energy in the home. SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION NO. 11

Councillor Hall

I just wanted to say that I think this is an excellent example of cross -party work, across the Council Chamber. I would like to ask the Mayor if he thinks that this is a good way of communicating important information to residents who otherwise migh t not have access to it.

Mayor

After the last Council meeting, I was very conscious of the need for urgency. As you can see, we acted on this in order to be able to piggy -back on the distribution of Lewisham Life . The response rate is very encouraging. It demonstrates the collective wisdom of the Council in taking this view. We also need to be aware that not everyone will receive the information in the same way. Some will get it through the modern ways, such as through the internet and Twitter, and s o on. For others, the traditional method of posting literature through their doors is the way to do it. QUESTION No. 12

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

1 MARCH 2010

Question by Councillor Lu xton of the Deputy Mayor

Question

A number of local residents have raised safety concerns about the junction of Hilly Fields Crescent with Tyrwhitt Road. It is a popular place to cross to get to Hilly Fields, but something of a blind spot for all road us ers due to the bend in the road. Has the Highways department ever carried out a safety audit at this location and have highways officers got any recommendations on how safety could be improved here? Have there been any recorded accidents here in the past 5 years?

Hilly Fields Crescent and Tyrwhitt Road are within a 20mph zone with traffic calming, which was installed in 2005. There are no recorded accidents at this junction in the 5 year period to the end of October 2009, the latest available data.

There are no current proposals for this junction and safety audits are carried out only on planned schemes. Visibility at this junction on the western side is poor with the added complication of a bus stop there.

The Council maintains a list of small sc ale traffic management and pedestrian crossing requests. A proposal for a controlled crossing just east of this junction is on the list of locations to be assessed as to whether a zebra crossing is viable. An assessment will include pedestrian counts, vehi cle speeds, desired crossing points and visibility before a crossing can be designed. If viable it will be added to the list of small scale schemes to be prioritised and those to be progressed will be the schemes with the highest priority and within the bu dget available. SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION NO. 12

Councillor Luxton Action

Do you know how soon the assessment of that junction will be carried out? Please could you ask officers to notify ward councillors of the results?

Deputy Mayor

Certainly I would have thought that the latter question goes without saying. We will let you know what the results are. If that has not been your Regen. experience in the past, I apologise for that. We will make sure that, in the future, those assessments are reported back to ward members.

In terms of the date when the assessment will be carried out, I do not know the specifics. I will consult officers and ask them to send the information directly to you. QUESTION No. 13

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

1 MARCH 2010

Question by Councillor Michel of the Cabinet Member for Customer Services

Question

Please could you provide an update on what steps the Council is taking to recoup the money i t has spent on repairs in default to 63a Loampit Hill? Please outline the reasons for the latest delays and give an indication of how long you think it will take fo r this to be resolved?

A new roof was placed on this property, by contractors, wh o carried out works in default following an abatement notice under the Environment Protection Act 1990. The failed roof was giving rise to a pigeon infestation. Notice was served on 21.5.05 and works completed in November 2007. A charge of £20,442 has b een placed on the property. This debt remains outstanding along with interest.

The elderly owner of the property has since died. Legal Services have been endeavouring to serve notice on the relevant proprietor to chase the outstanding debt and interest . Only recently has it been established that an application for probate has been made but outside of the jurisdiction of the UK. As soon as the issue of probate has been resolved the authority will pursue its outstanding charge. If the debt remains outs tanding the council will seek to take possession of the property under the Law of Property Act 1925 and dispose of the property in auction. SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION NO. 13

Councillor Michel

Considering that this particular issue has been going on fo r years and years already, could you give us some indication of a timeline for actually continuing work on this?

Councillor Wise

As far as I can see, the charge was put on the property in 2007. We are continuing to pursue that debt, as we continue to pu rsue every debt to the Council, through the proper channels as speedily as possible. QUESTION No. 14

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

1 MARCH 2010

Question by Councillor Gyechie of the Deput y Mayor

Question

(i) Why has the council not provided grit bins for the use of residents?

(ii) Will the council be willing to provide grit bins for the use of residents.

Grit bins can be a very useful self -help facility but there are problems with providing them in a city environment.

(i) The main issue is that in the past such bins have been used by people as litter bins. Furthermore unlocked grit bins can result in the salt being used for private accesses and not for the purpose for which i t is intended.

(ii) Consideration is being given to installing new grit bins at various locations around the borough. It is likely that these would be fitted with padlocks, and we will be considering whether these will be open for members of the public to use or purely for Council staff and contractors. QUESTION No. 15

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

1 MARCH 2010

Question by Councillor Maines of the Cabinet Member for Customer Servic es

Question

Are you confident that Lewisham will achieve the Mayor of London's targets to recycle 45% of waste by 2015 and 60% by 2031. Th e Mayor of London said that he had written to borough leaders on 18th January to urge them to redouble efforts to b oost recycling have you formally responded to his letter?

The Mayor of London’s proposed recycling targets are London wide targets rather than individual borough targets. As such Lewisham will contribute positively to the overall London wide target. The Mayor’s letter informed us of the consultation process for his draft Municipal Waste Strategy and our officers are attending meetings with the GLA to discuss and contribute to the Strategy. They will also respond directly and contribute via the approp riate London wide bodies.

It is also worth being clear about Lewisham’s approach to waste management – we have focussed on the waste hierarchy as well as offering value for money for our residents.

Lewisham has a kerbside dry recycling rate of 19.95% w hich is approximately mid table in the London league tables and performs better than authorities such as Barnet, Redbridge, Waltham Forest and Havering, whose combined recycling / composting rates show as over 26% (2008/9 figures).

We have a commitment to waste minimisation demonstrated through the services we do and don’t provide (i.e. food and free garden waste), and whilst overall waste per household is mid table, authorities that boast high recycling / composting rates often have very high overall wast e per household figures; Forward planning and investment in the SELCHP incinerator has enabled Lewisham to be amongst the first authorities to significantly reduce waste to landfill thereby reducing significantly the negative environmental impacts of such an operation. Lewisham has the 4th lowest rate of waste sent to landfill in the country and an even lower rate for household waste at 3.72%. The residues from the incineration process, resulted in 22,453.56 tonnes (April – Nov 2009) of bottom ash, which i s mainly used as road aggregate and 16,669.11 tonnes (April – Nov) of metal, which is sent for recycling.

In terms of waste disposal Lewisham has regard to the principles of Best Practical Environment Option, ‘Proximity Principle’ and regional self - suffic iency, when considering waste management options, thereby minimising waste related vehicle movements resulting in 92.45% of waste dealt with in London.

We have also developed a range of initiatives which have all contributed to waste minimisation and incr eased recycling. These include:

• Offering a door -to -door recycling collection to all houses in the borough – that’s over 75,000 homes – to collect paper, card, plastic bottles, cans and glass. Approximately 40,000 residents have a 240 -litre wheeled bin for dry recyclables. Residents have 240l bins for their residual waste, but the bin replacement programme has reduced the size of this to 180l. It is further intended with funding received from the Mayor to roll out a programme of smaller residual bins whilst converting 240l bins into recycling containers to a further 20,000 households to support the Councils waste minimisation programme.

• High rise estates have recycling collection points to make it easier for residents to recycle. About 38,000 properties ben efit from this.

• Lewisham promotes the use of compost bins and s ince 2004 we’ve distributed 7,473 home composters, thereby keeping waste out of the waste stream. However we do provide a chargeable garden waste scheme, whereby residents can purchase a roll of 10 bags and householders must phone up to book a collection/s. To ensure that waste is kept to a minimum, free garden waste collections are not provided. However, last summer Lewisham launched four garden waste satellite sites that residents could take their garden waste to free of charge. These ran every Saturday and Sunday, from July until November. Across all four sites 98,180kg of garden waste was collected . This year’s service will start in March and run until the end of November.

• During the au tumn we collected leaf litter separately for compost on estates and this will be continued in the next leafing season.

• This year we recycled over 8,000 Christmas trees and Lewisham staff have collected 10,000 Christmas cards that will get reused in schoo l projects and the St Christopher’s Hospice. • We have introduced Battery recycling to all libraries and schools are being asked to see if they would like battery recycling points.

• Street litter recycling is carried across all the main roads and town ce ntres in the borough as well as some residential areas. Since it began in July 2009, 132,450kg of recyclable waste has been sent for recycling.

• Recently we introduced an innovative free mattress recycling service for householders. To date 1,948 mattresse s have been collected.

• Lewisham has adopted the National campaign "Love Food, Hate Waste", which aims to raise awareness of the need to reduce the amount of food we throw away. To kick start the campaign, Love Food, Hate Waste advisors have set up info rmation stalls in New Cross Gate Sainsbury’s and Lewisham Shopping Centre (5 sessions over the last few months) armed with inspiring recipe ideas, handy storage tips, and some free give away items such as spaghetti measurers. 435 people have been spoken to on a one to one basis within these sessions and many more have taken away information.

• Over the past five months the Waste Advisors have knocked on 25,826 doors, explaining to residents what they can and can’t recycle.

• Our Clean and Green Schools Pro gramme delivers information to schools on environmental issues such as litter, graffiti, waste education, energy, biodiversity and transport. There are eight themes in the Clean and Green programme that primary and secondary schools can address. There are now 25 schools involving in excess of 300 students that have all recently undergone waste auditing.

SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION NO. 15

Councillor Maines

My question asks Councillor Wise whether she is confident that we will reach these targets. Thank you for the two -page answer. The word ‘yes’ does not appear at all in the answer.

Councillor Wise

Then let me say it to you, Councillor Maines. In the past, I have mentioned ‘no’ to Councillor Bennett for some of his very silly supplementary questions. Fo r you, I will say ‘yes.’ QUESTION No. 16

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

1 MARCH 2010

Question by Councillor Milton of the Cabinet Member for Community Safety

Question

What is the Counc il's assessment of the level of risk of young people being exposed to unacceptable levels of crime and anti social behaviour in (a) Lewisham town centre and (b) Benden House in Monument Gardens, and what action is being considered to address it?

The majority of young people in Lewisham are well behaved. The Council and Police continue to prioritise Lewisham Town Centre in relation to Anti Social Behaviour, with additional police teams, patrols after school and engagement via the Community Wardens and Detached Youth Workers. Individuals are being identified and individual interventions in place.

In relation to Benden House, the level of ASB is not curren tly of note, however the Safer N eighbourhood Teams will ensure that there is presence in the area and if required appropriate action taken.

We know from the Young Mayor's programme and the choices they have made in using their budget that they are keen to invest in programmes that increase safety. There are, however, a minority of young people involved in anti -social behaviour. Through our partnership with the police we have a range of programmes to address these issues and minimise the risks to others .

This work is in line with the Metropolitan Police Service Y outh Strategy which specifically identifies the following: • the safety of pupils, staff and the school site and surrounding area;

• help for young people to deal with situations that may put them at risk of becoming victims of crime, bullying or intimidation and to provide support to those who do;

• focused enforcement to demonstrate that those who do offend cannot do so without facing consequences;

• early identification, support and where necessary challenge of pupils involved in or at risk of offending;

• improved standards of pupil behaviour and attendance and less need for exclusions;

• more positive relations between young people and the police and between young people and the wider community; and

• effective approaches to issues beyond the school site that negatively impact on pupil safety and behaviour .

SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION NO. 16

Councillor Milton

My question is actually couched in terms of the risk of young people being exposed to crime, but the answer seems to be about crime by young people. I hope that is not a Freudian slip on behalf of the Cabinet member because I hope she would agree with me that the issues of youth crime are actually much more, in some ways, about them being exposed to crime rather than simply being the perpetrators of it.

Councillor Onuegbu

I do agree with the po int you make that young people are exposed to crime and should be protected. I fully agree with that. At the same time, I need to paint the picture that young people are not responsible for crime which is being committed. I agree with you that they are victims. Thank you. QUESTION No. 17

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

1 MARCH 2010

Question by Councillor Robson of the Deputy Mayor

Question

What contact has the Council had from The Cro wn Estate regarding their proposal to dispose of their residential properties in Lee Green Ward? What representations have been made by the Council to date?

The Crown Estate’s Director of Investment and Asset Management wrote to me on 25 January 2010, outlining their proposal to sell the freehold of 78 properties in Lee Green.

A further letter was received by the Mayor dated 18 February 2010, providing a consultation update.

Following a meeting with a large number of affected residents, I wrot e to The Crown Estate outlining a number of concerns about the proposal.

SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION NO. 17

Councillor Robson Action

I know that the Deputy Mayor shares the concerns of the ward councillors about this proposal. Unlike the Council’s stock transfers, residents are not going to be balloted on the proposal. They have also not been given access to an independent tenants’ advisor, which is what happens with stock transfers that the Council organises. I wonder whether the Council might be prepared to step in to provide an independent tenants’ advisor so that these tenants have a source of indep endent legal advice with regard to their position on the Crown Estate.

Deputy Mayor

I would certainly be happy to explore that with the Crown Est ate. Some of the concerns that Councillor Robson has already outlined actually featured Cust.Serv. in the written representati ons that I made to Paul Clark , the person who is leading on it at the Crown Estate. Even if the Council wanted to do somethi ng, unless we had some certainty that it was going to be of value to those individuals and that the Crown Estate would be willing to work with us on it, I think we just need to be sure that it is worth us doing. I am perfectly happy to explore what ma y be possible. QUESTION No. 18

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

1 MARCH 2010

Question by Councillor Clutten of the Deputy Mayor

Question

How many pot holes have been reported following the councils advice for residents to report any damage after the snow and ice in December 2009 and, of these, how many have the council now repaired?

1,340 potholes have been reported since 1 st January 2010. I am told that a ll potholes which have be en reported have received temporary, make -safe repairs.

SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION NO. 18

Councillor Clutten Action

You mentioned how many potholes have been reported and how many temporary solutions have been found. I would like to know how man y permanent repairs have been made since the report.

Deputy Mayor

I do not have the information available on permanent repairs. I can certainly Regen. get that information from Council officers and come back to you on that. QUESTI ON No. 19

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

1 MARCH 2010

Question by Councillor Pattisson of the Cabinet Member for Customer Services

Question

When was the Council made aware that the Housing and Communities Agen cy would not be able to provide funding for a stock transfer on the Excalibur Estate? Reply

The Council has spent many months lobbying both the HCA and the Community for Local Government ( CLG ) to try to secure funding for Excalibur as a stock transfer. C reative attempts have also been made to fit the Excalibur scheme to the HCA funding regimes to enable it to be funded as a stock transfer. Despite early encouragement to pursue this route, the HCA verbally indicated in October that they would be unable to do this. H owever it was only in February after pushing the HCA for written confirmation that the promised confirmation was received in writing. The HCA did indicate that it may be possible for them to provide funding via the National Affordable Homes Prog ramme. Officers from both London and Quadrant and the Council set about looking to see if this was a viable option, both financially, and in terms of maintaining the key elements of the offer made to residents under the stock transfer. Given our previous experience i t was felt that a level of certain ty over future funding and ability to preserve the main elements of the offer would be important before taking any proposals out to discuss with residents. Th at greater certainty has only been provided in the last few weeks and hence discussions started with the residents steering group and more detailed consultation is now underway with all residents on the estate. SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION NO. 19

Councillor Pattisson

Unfortunately, you have not really an swered my question here, but I can deduct, from what you have said, that at the time of the last Council meeting you were fully aware that a stock transfer was no longer viable on the estate. Why did you make no mention of that?

Councillor Wise

I think you can see that it is pretty clear from this answer, Councillor Pattisson, that we were still working with the HCA to look at the viability of an option. I even took Richard Blakeway, in December, around the estate to see if we could further fund anythin g from them. I think this answer is pretty clear to you. QUESTION No. 20

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

1 MARCH 2010

Question by Councillor Edgerton of the Cabinet Member for Customer Services

Question

Most council homes are now fitted with smoke detectors. Who is responsible for maintenances and how often is this carried out?

Hostels, Sheltered Housing & Supported Housing

Smoke detectors are installed in all the hostels, sheltere d housing & supported housing properties.

The Fire Alarms systems at the above premises are checked & serviced 4 times per year by the specialist sub -contractor.

An allocated person within each building is responsible for ensuring that the weekly fire al arm tests are carried out, recording all the events in the fire alarm logbook and keeping it up to date.

Lewisham Homes

Each Lewisham homes occupier, has been provided with a Stand Alone Fire Alarm Detector. This is powered by Lithium battery (approxima tely 10 year life span).

The occupier is responsible for periodically testing the Fire Alarm device. QUESTION No. 21

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

1 MARCH 2010

Question by Councillor Ru ssell of the Deputy Mayor

Question

Is the Deputy Mayor concerned about the numbers of empty shops in Lewisham's high streets . W hat work is the Council doing to address this problem?

I have always been anxious to address any vacant units in our town centres. Sadly there is a limit to what a local authority can achieve in reversing national trends although I believe many town centres in the borough have fared reasonably well in the current economic climate.

An imp ortant priority for the Council over the last year or so has been to seek to maintain the number of active businesses in our town centres and shopping parades. A free property finder service he lps match businesses which are seeking to locate in the borough with vacant properties and the Town Centre Management Team work with local businesses and traders associations to promote the borough’s town centres as business locations. In the last 12 months the service has helped 110 new businesses to start up and 500 small businesses have receive d advice, training and mentoring.

To seek to mitigate the adverse effects of those properties which have become vacant, t he Council’s Town Centre Managers are working with local businesses and traders associations to identify priorities f or improving the appearance of shopping areas across the borough. Mayor and Cabi net on 20 January 2010 approved funding of £152,000 for this purpose, of which £52,000 has been provided as a grant from central government . Each of the five Town Centre Managers has been all ocated an equal share of this funding which will be used to improve the appearance of shopping areas. This may involve using vacant units for ‘pop up’ shops or community centres, providing signage or hoardings for vacant shops, and improving the general appearance of the shopping environment.

There are a cluster of empty shops in Lewisham Town Centre which form part of the site of the Lewisham Gateway scheme. The demolition of these remaining buildings, which were subject to a Compulsory Purchase Order b y the London Development Agency, is now planned to take place during March and April as a further step towards the new deve lopment . To ensure that these sites do not detract from the appearance of the town centre following demolition, Mayor and Cabi net al so approved funding of £200,000 in January 2010 for temporary landscaping schemes. This should help to maintain the attractiveness of the town centre, ensure that residents continue to visit, and that demand for services and retail is maintained during th e programme of redevelopment.

SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION NO. 21

Councillor Russell

Can I thank the Deputy Mayor very much for her answer. Just considering that Lee Green had the second highest number of empty shops of any London high street, and I believe that Forest Hill also has far too many empty shops, can I ask if there is anything more that the Council could and should be doing? In her opinion, does she feel there is anything more the Council could be doing where the landlords are charging rents tha t are far too high and unrealistic?

Deputy Mayor

I believe that the Council is making strenuous efforts to maintain vitality in our high streets. On a personal level, I can tell Councillor Russell that I have made direct phone calls to, for example, the owners of Leegate, St Modwen. I am very pleased that St Modwen have agreed to give us one of the vacant shops there for use as a youth café.

It is not only Council officers who are working hard on this. We have also secure d money from Central Governme nt to pump into our smaller town centres. We received £50,000. The Mayor has added to that budget. There is always scope to do more, to be honest, but I am satisfied that we are making strenuous efforts.

I am also aware of discussions that have taken p lace in parts of the Borough – often led by elected politicians with landlords – when the level of commercial rent is deemed by traders in the area to be too high. I have certainly been involved in those discussions in and around Honor Oak Park. I know t he Crofton ward councillors will be aware of some of the issues on that parade of shops. Wherever we can help and assist traders, and traders associations, we do so, but there are obviously limits to our powers in that respect. QUESTION No. 22

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

1 MARCH 2010

Question by Councillor Brooks of the Cabinet Member for Community Safety

Question

Please explain in detail with evidence what the Council is doing to promote the Po licing Pledge in Lewisham for those without internet access. a) How is the roll out of the Policing Pledge being monitored by the Council in Lewisham ? b) How is the compliance of the Policing Pledge being monitored by the Council and what steps are being taken to ensure the Police actually comply. c) Has the Council checked independently, whether or not victims of crime in Lewisham are happy the Police are complying with the relevent parts of the Policing Pledge ?

There is a wide media st rategy in place to promote the Policing Pledge which does not rely on the Intranet . Posters and leaflets are available from all stations and written and verbal information is available from all Safer Neighbourhood Teams. There has also been a national me dia campaign.

A) Copies of the Policing Pledge have been delivered to every household within the borough by the Safer Neighbourhood Teams. There are posters explaining the police’s responsibilities under the pledge in Council buildings. There is a polic e presence at Local Assemblies; and part of that presence is promoting the police pledge. B) Compliance against the Pledge is part of the standard weekly police performance scorecard, which is monitored through the Safer Lewisham Pa rtnership framework . The Metropolitan Police Authority are the statutory body which hold the police service to account in relation to this .

C) The Council fund Lewisham Victim Support to support victims of crime, who feedback their views to us

The User Satisfaction Survey (USS) (formerly known as the Crime Victim Survey) measures victim satisfaction with the service they have received from the police. The results are gathered through interviews with 18,000 victims a year and concerns burglary, violent crime, vehicle crime, road traffic accidents and racially motivated crime.

The Public Attitude Survey (PAS) undertakes 640 interviews per borough per year, with interviewing taking place continually throughout the year, and conducted face -to -face in residents homes. It is thi s that questions members of community about the aspects of Policing Pledge .

These survey results are reported and monitored within the Safer Lewisham Partnership structure.

In addition, victims of crime also have the protection of the Victim of Crime Cod es of Practice, full details are available on the website below: - http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/victims -code -of - practice2835.pdf?view=Binary QUESTION No. 23

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

1 MARCH 2010

Question by Councillor Houghton of the Mayor

Question

Will the Mayor agree to an indicative ballot of the Excalibur Estate, as par t of his consultation process on the regeneration of the Estate?

Whilst a ballot of eligible tenants is not a statutory part of the process for regeneration schemes (unlike a stock transfer) nevertheless it has not been ruled out and my personal pr eference would be to have a ballot. A full and comprehensive consultation process is underway with all residents. As part of this consultation PPCR, as an independent body, have been asked to undertake a survey of residents views on the proposals.

The results of the survey will be fed back in a report to Mayor & Cabinet . The report will also set out the implicati ons of undertaking a formal ballot in order that I can then give this matter my full consideration. Notwithstanding my preference for a ballot I will also need to consider the implications of any further delays when reaching a decision. QUESTI ON No. 24

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

1 MARCH 2010

Question by Councillor Peake of the Chair of the Safer & Stronger Communities Select Committee

Question

List the attendance figures for each c ouncillor on Safer & Stronger Communities Scrutiny Committee since the beginning of the municipal year 09/10.

Committee Member Attendance Figure Duwayne Brooks 7/7 Godfried Gyechie 3/7 Dan Houghton 5/7 Jarmar Parmar 7/7 Madeline Long 0/7 Jac kie Addison 4/7 Eva Stamirowski 4/7 Alan Till 5/7 Hilary Downes 0/7 Dean Walton 5/7 SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION NO. 24

Councillor Peake

Thank you, Councillor Parmar for the figures. If I am not much mistaken, the New Cross ward has one of the high est crime rates in London, never mind the Borough. Is Councillor Parmar as surprised as I am that the ward councillor for New Cross was not able to attend any of the meetings?

Councillor Parmar

Chair, she did give an apology for one meeting, but otherwi se she did not attend any meetings. Yes, I can confirm that. QUESTION No. 25

Priority 1

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

1 MARCH 2010

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

Question

Please provide figures to show the percentage of children on free school meals at each primary school in the borough and which ward each school is in. Why were the schools assigned to the wrong wards until recently?

The following tables show the percentage of children on free school meals at each primary school. The Lewisham FSM figure is 24.7% overall; nationally it is 16%.

Percentage of Pupils Eligible for Free School Meals in Lewisham Schools Source: School Census January 200 9

Pupil FSM Eligible Ward Name Numbers Number % Bellingham Athelney 333 143 42.9% Elfrida 407 151 37.1% Haseltine 305 151 49.5% St Augustines RC 224 31 13.8% Bellingham Total 1269 476 37.5%

Blackheath All Saints CE 197 5 2.5% John Ball 457 73 16.0% St. Margaret's Lee CE 234 31 13.2% Blackheath Total 888 109 12.3%

Brockley Ashmead 245 33 13.5% Lucas Vale 287 106 36.9% Myatt Garden 480 78 16.3% St James Hatcham CE 213 57 26.8% St Stephen's C E 232 36 15.5% Brockley Total 1457 310 21.3%

Catford South Holy Cross RC 249 20 8.0% Rushey Green 485 111 22.9% Sandhurst Infants 312 33 10.6% Sandhurst Junior 299 47 15.7% Torridon Infants 316 48 15.2% Torridon Junior 354 56 15 .8% Catford South Total 2015 315 15.6%

Crofton Park Brockley 234 82 35.0% Dalmain 348 95 27.3% St Mary Magdalen RC 203 39 19.2% St William of York 245 32 13.1% Stillness Infants 312 27 8.7% Stillness Junior 314 42 13.4% Crofton Park Total 1656 317 19.1%

Downham Downderry 428 157 36.7% Good Shepherd RC 224 61 27.2% Launcelot 315 83 26.3% Rangefield 383 134 35.0% Downham Total 1350 435 32.2%

Evelyn Deptford Park 474 187 39.5% Grinling Gibbons 227 84 37.0% Sir Francis Drake 206 86 41.7% St Joseph's RC 253 59 23.3% Evelyn Total 1160 416 35.9%

Forest Hill Christ Church CE 201 79 39.3% Eliot Bank 447 107 23.9% Fairlawn 505 52 10.3% Holy Trinity CE 158 57 36.1% Horniman 205 29 14.1% Kelvin Grove 455 162 35.6% Forest Hill Total 1971 486 24.7%

Grove Park Baring 219 50 22.8% Coopers Lane 464 84 18.1% Marvels Lane 351 132 37.6% Grove Park Total 1034 266 25.7%

Ladywell Gordonbrock 519 88 17. 0% Ladywell Total 519 88 17.0%

Lee Green Brindishe 245 25 10.2% Lee Manor 399 94 23.6% St Winifred's Infant 174 8 4.6% St Winifreds Junior 179 14 7.8% Lee Green Total 997 141 14.1%

Lewisham Central Hither Green 488 141 28.9% Lewisham Bridge 332 128 38.6% St Mary's Lewisham CE 265 87 32.8% St Saviour's RC 236 48 20.3% Lewisham Central Total 1321 404 30.6%

New Cross Childeric 367 144 39.2% Tidemill 345 136 39.4% New Cross Total 712 280 39.3%

Perry Vale Adamsrill 427 123 28.8% Kilmorie 364 40 11.0% Perrymount 225 59 26.2% Perry Vale Total 1016 222 21.9%

Rushey Green Holbeach 452 128 28.3% Rathfern 377 80 21.2% Rushey Green Total 829 208 25.1%

Sydenham Ou r Lady and St Philip Neri RC 327 39 11.9% St Bartholomew's CE 289 42 14.5% St Michael's CE 296 46 15.5% Sydenham Total 912 127 13.9%

Telegraph Hill Edmund Waller 429 98 22.8% John Stainer 220 64 29.1% Kender 224 66 29.5% Turnham 503 169 33.6% Telegraph Hill Total 1376 397 28.9%

Whitefoot Forster Park 433 183 42.3% Merlin 310 84 27.1% St John Baptist CE 210 37 17.6% Whitefoot Total 953 304 31.9%

All Wards All Primary Schools 21435 5301 24.7%

The error in assigning schools to wards has now been rectified. An incorrect table had been used. The error in the table did not affect the FSM data that was provided, but did affect the Ward assigned to 49 Schools. This did not affect any other piece of wo rk relating to schools and Wards.

SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION NO. 25

Councillor Fletcher Action

Why do these figures differ from the ones given to me just a few weeks ago? What is going on with the figures and can the public have confidence in them if they keep changing like this? Councillor Massey

I am going to miss robust scrutiny like this, Councillor Fletcher! The simple C & YP answer is: I cannot answer a question about a table which you saw a few weeks ago because I was not party to that. I suggest that this probably is not a question that is easy to answer at Full Council. I will get the officers to supply you with the answer. I would assure you, however, that there is no conspiracy to move schools to different wards or to play game s with the tables, perhaps in the way that you are suggesting. QUESTION No. 26

Priority 2

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

1 MARCH 2010

Question by Councillor Muldoon of the Chair of the Overview & Scruti ny Committee

Question

When were scrutiny members informed about the cancellation of the 16th Feb ruary meeting of Overview & Scrutiny Committee ?

The Overview & Scrutiny Committee meeting was cancelled on 10 th February and members would have recei ved notification of this through members post on 11 th February 2010.

SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION NO. 26

Councillor Muldoon

This is, I believe, the second meeting in a row of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee that the Chair has cancelled without any expla nation to members of the Overview and Scrutiny Committee. I think scrutiny is one of the most powerful tools that this Council has. Is the Chair saying, as the true face of Lewisham Liberal Democrats: unaccountable, unable to handle power, and ultimately unelectable?

Councillor Russell

Thank you very much, Councillor Muldoon for your question. My apologies to you personally and to everybody else for the late cancellation of that meeting. We are working to arrange another meeting, which will either be on the 17 th or the 23 rd March. I will get back to you. QUESTION No. 27

Priority 2

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

1 MARCH 2010

Question by Councillor Phoenix of the Cabinet Member for Cu stomer Services

Question

Why has Decent Homes work in the Brockley conservation area left dwellings without double -glazing at the rear of the properties? How many households have been affected by this and therefore will face higher fuel bills than they would if their properties had been comprehensively double -glazed?

Double glazing to properties within the Brockley conservation area has been excluded from the contract due to planning and affordability issues.

Planning – Brockley PFI installs do uble glazed uPVC windows to all properties outside the conservation zone. Planning prohibits the replacement of timber framed windows with uPVC windows in a conservation area. Therefore, the contractual remit is to overhaul and refurbish all timber framed windows. Draught exclusion materials are also included in the refurbishment of timber frame windows to help with the reduction in fuel bills. 37 timber frame windows located at the rear of some properties which do not face the conservation area have been replaced with double glazed uPVC windows. There are 540 properties in the Conservation zone out of a total of 1836 properties within the PFI portfolio.

Affordability – replacement of double glazed, timber, sash windows would have meant the contract would not be financially viable so a decision was taken to refurbish rather than replace. SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION NO. 27

Councillor Phoenix

Do you consider that draught -proofing, instead of double -glazing, is truly sufficient to prevent heat loss and to cut the fuel bills to fight fuel poverty, and to help tenants reduce their carbon emissions? Do you think it is satisfactory that tenants’ protection against the cold should be dependent on a postcode lottery? The rear of this particular set of properties does not affect the conservation area or aesthetics. It is such an important element, I would think, in what I would call having a Decent Home.

Councillor Wise

Councillor Phoenix, I am pretty sure you are well aware of the issues we have had over windows in the Brockley PFI, and you are well aware of the issues with the conservation areas. I feel very strongly about the issues of fuel poverty. We are working with Regenter B3 to address this as well as we can. Let me assure you that it is happening. QUESTION No. 28

Priority 2

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

1 MARCH 2010

Question by Councillor Johnson of the Cabinet Member for Customer Services

Question

Given that the Sustainable Development Selec t Committee noted that 50% of homes vulnerable to fuel poverty in Lewisham are located in the private rented sector and recognised that the Council does have discretionary powers under the Housing Act 2004 to require works to deal with Excess Cold Hazards where it is not a duty, will the Council follow the lead of Islington, where their environmental health team make considerable use of this power to tackle excess cold in the private rented sector?

The system currently in use to assess standards is called the Housing Health and Safety R ating System (HHSRS). This enables a list of 29 hazards to be considered including one for ‘Excess Cold’. If a home is so deficient that a hazard is rated as a Category 1 hazard then the Council has a duty to take formal action. If a home has a hazard that is less serious , then it would be rated as a Category 2 and the Council would have a discretionary power to take formal action. The Council’s current approach is not to take action with regard to any Category 2 hazards unless a Category 1 hazard is also found in the home.

The Council is currently in the process of commissioning a private sector stock condition survey and private rent sector study and it is hoped that this will inform the Council with regard to its current private sector strategy and enforcement policy with regard to adopting specific strategic approaches to address issues ide ntified .

The Council currently offers an advice service providing support for residents to reduce the cost of heating th eir home. Information available includes how to access insulation grants and reduce the cost of energy through social tariffs. These measures are likely to be more effective in reducing fuel poverty than enforcement action under the 2004 Housing Act.

SUPP LEMENTARY QUESTION NO. 28

Councillor Johnson

As well as using the advice services which you have highlighted in the answer, could not more use be made of enforcement action against landlords, as other local authorities have done?

Councillor Wise

If we feel there is a need and it is a ppropriate to do so, then we certainly will, Councillor Johnson. QUESTION No. 29

Priority 2

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

1 MARCH 2010

Questi on by Councillor Keogh of the Deputy Mayor

Question

Now that 'The Lounge' development is underway in Deptford are there any plans to house a Museum of Deptford within it, or elsewhere in the town, which could house the many vulnerable artefacts in the ce llar of New Cross Library which local people currently cannot access?

There are currently no plans to house a permanent 'Museum of Deptford' within the Lounge complex. There is provision for a gallery and performance space, plus room for visitin g exhibitions, which could include vulnerable artefacts. During the annual exhibition, arranged for 26 to 27th February 2010, we consulted with the community on what art they woul d like to see within the Lounge. T his will inform the arts strategy for the complex. QUESTION No. 30

Priority 2

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

1 MARCH 2010

Question by Councillor Britton of the Deputy Mayor

Question

What is the exact status of t he area originally known as the old dairy, and recently, as the Yellow Box, site, in Baring Road?

The site knows as the Old Dairy, 2 Baring Road, was bought in 2000 by the Big Yellow Storage Company who intended to develop a self storage facility on the site. However, despite a number of planning applications and appeals, they were unsuccessful in gaining support from either the Council or the Secretary of State for their proposals. As such, they now intend to sell the site to a residential develope r.

The site does not have a site allocation within the adopted 2004 Unitary Development Plan. In a previous consultation round of the replacement Local Development Framework the site was allocated as a residential development site and this approach is al so likely to be taken forward in the next round of consultations.

SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION NO. 30

Councillor Britton

Bearing in mind the huge problems there have been over this site, and concerns which local residents have raised with me, just over the l ast two or three weeks while we have been canvassing there, do we know whether a sale is under active consideration? Do we know when a final decision is likely to be made about that site?

Deputy Mayor

Just as Councillor Britton may have been canvassing in that area, so have I. I have equally been asked similar questions. My conversations with officers suggest to me that some of that recent activity on the site may have been linked to a marketing exercise. However, I do not know that for sure. I also cannot answer the question, unfortunately, – as much as I would like to be able to – about when this issue will finally be resolved. QUESTION No. 31

Priority

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

1 MARCH 2010

Question by Councillor Luxton of the Cabinet Member for Customer Services

Question

For the past two years Brockley Cross Action Group have organised a popular and well -attended Fun Run on Hilly Fields. However this year they are so conce rned about the state of the footpaths on Hilly Fields that they fear it will be unsafe to do so. Obviously, this is very disappointing for the many local residents who take part in this event. Please could you provide an update on what progress has been ma de with plans to resurface the footpaths on Hilly Fields?

The poor condition of footpaths in a number of our public parks is one that we are keenly aware of and continue to make repairs through both planned maintenance and externally funded works. We were successful, in the spring of 2009, in securing funding to resurface and repair the east to west pathway .

Lewisham is very fortunate to have many great parks situated on high ground, affording wonderful views across London, however these hills a re made up of London clay which cause more problems in laying pathways. The costs of resurfacing is therefore extremely high.

In partnership with the local community, we are actively making improvements at Hilly Fields, this Spring will see the installati on of a new children’s playground and works are progressing with the exciting cricket project. These improvements make the need for good footpaths a priority. With this in mind we have bid for Transport for London cycling and walking funding to resurface the north to south pathway, from the bowls club to Eastern Road. We will learn the outcome of the bid in March, and if successful works can take place early in the new financial year. Should the bid not be successful some repairs will be made to this pa thway, but not a full resurface. SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION NO. 31

Councillor Luxton Action

I am pleased to hear we are putting a bid in to Transport for London (TfL) for this path because it is in an atrocious condition. Could you again please ensure that ward councillors, and Friends of Hilly Fields, and the Francis Drake Bowling Club, are informed of the outcome of the TfL bid? They are all keen to hear when the path will be resurfaced.

Councillor Wise

Certainly. You are well aware how muc h it costs to resurface our roads, so Cust. Serv. you can imagine that paths and parks are equally as high. Sadly they do not get the same priority as roads. I think they should, but everything is expensive. You will be given the information. QUESTION No. 32

Priority 2

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

1 MARCH 2010

Question by Councillor Maines of the Cabinet Member for Community Services

Question

Will the Council continue to use Alpha Fireworks Ltd, to sponsor and provide the Blackheath Firework Display following the guilty verdicts on two counts of breaching health and safety legislation and the owners recently being found guilty of Manslaughter ?

The contract for the p rovision of site infrastructure, operations management, display and fundraising for Blackheath Fireworks was awarded to Festival Special Events Ltd (a sister company of Alpha Fireworks) in 2009 for an initial period of 1 year, with possible extensions for periods up to a further three years.

Festival Special Events Ltd will no longer be able to fulfil the requirements of the contract and as a result no extension will be made and the contract is therefore terminated.

We will be re -tendering the contact for Blackheath Fireworks from mid march with the production management being tendered separately to the provision of the display itself.

A sponsorship agreement between Lewisham Council and GLA , who have sponsored the event in previous years, is current ly being drawn up. SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION NO. 32

Councillor Maines

With regards to just the last paragraph, could the Cabinet member confirm whether it is the GLA or a company called the GLC that is our sponsor for that event?

Councillor Best

It i s the GLC. QUESTION No. 33

Priority 2

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

1 MARCH 2010

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

Question

What have Lewisham Bo rough Cou ncil been doing to work with it s Members of Youth Parliament, Justin Amechi and Kaileigh Green?

Each year as part of the Young Mayor Election process , those local young people placed third and fourth in the ballot are also elected to U K Yo uth Parliament. In addition, t hey become members of the Young Mayor’s Young Advisors, who are the representative body for Young People in Lewisham. This group is comprised of representatives from organised young people’s groups such as youth forums, scho ol councils, youth advisory groups and youth groups.

Both Justin and Kaileigh are members of the Young Advisors and as such are supported in their work both in Lewisham and with the UKYP.

SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION NO. 33

Councillor Clutten

I would like to ask whether the Cabinet member thinks that getting young people involved in local government is more important than being involved on a national scale . Councillor Massey

I think it very much depends on the interests of the young people concerned, Coun cillor Clutten. What I would say is that being involved locally gives them a good deal of power. Lewisham was one of the first boroughs in the country to pioneer a Young Mayor scheme. Last week, anyone who came to Mayor and Cabinet would have seen the o utcome of the report for process in which they decided on the expenditure of £640,000 on positive youth activities. I think that is an incredibly useful thing for a young person to get involved in; it gives them real responsibility. It is very much in th eir personal interests as to whether they choose to take a local or national route. I would add that, in Lambeth, the Liberal Democrats voted against a similar proposal put forward by the Labour group to set up a Young Mayor. QUESTION No. 34

Priority 2

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

1 MARCH 2010

Question by Councillor Pattisson of the Cabinet Member for Customer Services

Question

Excluding properties on the Excalibur estate, how ma ny bungalows with gardens have been advertised in Homesearch over the last year?

There have been six bungalows with gardens, not on the Excalibur estate advertised in the last year. They are as follows:

2 x 1 bed bungalows in Sydenham 1 x 1 be d bungalow in Lewisham 1 x 1 bed bungalow in Forest Hill 1 x studio bungalow in Brockley 1 x studio bungalow in Mottingham /Grove Park (Broomleigh part of Affinity Sutton)

SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION NO. 34

Councillor Pattisson

Thank you for your answer. Giv en that there are only six bungalows with gardens in Lewisham and over 186 on Excalibur Estate, should a regeneration scheme go ahead? How do you plan to decant the residents of Excalibur Estate into similar properties? Councillor Wise

The re sidents ar e all working with London &^ Quadrant and the Council to look at their own needs, Councillor Pattisson, as you know. Those residents who want to go in a like -for -like property will hopefully be able to do so. Many of the residents on the Excalibur Estate actually want to go into the over -50s blocks or into apartments because they find that looking after the gardens is quite a lot of work. They would be happy to relinquish that job.

One thing we also need to talk about is the new homes that will happen o n Excalibur. They will be lifetime homes. They will be a much better environment for those people who are living in those prefabricated houses at the moment. QUESTION No. 35

Priority 2

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

1 MARCH 2010

Question by Councillor Edgerton of the Cabinet Member for Customer Services

Question

I understand that it is not possible to view images from C.C.T.V. on Pepys Estate. Are there other areas with the same pr oblem, how long has this been a problem and when will the problem be rectified?

Lewisham Homes were made aware o f a problem with the playback Personal Computer in the control room on 18 December 2009.

Diagnosis by Cartel confirmed the failure of the hard drive and cooling system.

The required parts were quite rare but found as soon as possible .

Cartel now have all the necessary drivers and software and will be re - commissioning the PC w/c 15 February 2010 .

In the meantime both live and recorde d images have been available for review throughout this incident, as back up systems have previously been installed to negate this type of problem.

We are not aware of any other areas experiencing the same issues. QUESTION No . 36

Priority 2

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

1 MARCH 2010

Question by Councillor Russell of the Cabinet Member for Deputy Mayor

Question

Does the council have any plans to work towards the redevelopment of Fo rest Hill Station? Has the planning department done any work on land assembly around the station and/or any work on master planning. Has she or other officers had any contact or communications with TFL or other bodies regarding the redevelopment of Forest Hill station?

The Forest Hill Urban Design Framework and Development Strategy was adopted by the Council as supplementary planning guidance in 2003. The work on the strategy at that time closely involved landowners, local businesses and residents groups and resulted in proposals which, as well as providing long term strategic guidance, we re also founded on realistic development potential.

Whilst the majority of the sites identified in the strategy have either been developed or are progressing, t here are currently no plans arising from the Strategy’s proposals for the station and immediately surrounding area. However, myself and officers have been in ongoing discussions with Network Rail , the former station operator, Southern, and, more recently, Transport for London due to their London Overground role . The Strategy provides scope for a significant amount of mixed use redevelopment to both respond to the commercial opportunities arising from the increased rail service whilst helping to subsidise improvements to the station itself. Redevelopment could be achieved with the involvement of a small number of land owners and the Council would be happy to play a major role in taking proposals forward once Network Rail and TfL have confirmed their serious interest in such a scheme. SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTION NO. 36

Councillor Russell

I would like to thank the Deputy Mayor for the answer to my question. Obviously, as ward councillors, we welcome the supplementary planning guidance that was done in 2003 and t he recommendations in that report. The report is now seven years old. I do personally believe that the redevelopment of the station is a real priority and a real opportunity for Forest Hill, particularly now we have the London Overground coming. Can I a sk the Deputy Mayor whether she feels that now is really the time to take this forward and see if there is an opportunity to develop what is a very dilapidated building and to bring regeneration to Forest Hill?

Deputy Mayor

As much as I agree with Counci llor Russell that the redevelopment of Forest Hill station is a priority for the area, I also have to point out that, within the Borough, I believe there are 23 overland stations. We probably have some quite significant aspirations to redevelop many of th ose stations. Forest Hill is one of the stations that has had a piece of work done on it already. There is significant work that will take place at the station to improve the environment. I have been part of discussions about the underpass. I can certai nly consult with officers about what funds there might be available to perhaps update that piece of work that was done in 2003, but I cannot make any promises at this stage about it. I am certainly happy to have those conversations though. QUESTION No. 37

Priority 2

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

1 MARCH 2010

Question by Councillor Brooks of the Cabinet Member for Community Safety

Question

Lewisham has the highest number of registere d sex offenders in London . Please state what action is being taken to ensure the se people are monitored ?

All Registered Sex Offenders are subjected to the Multi -Agency Public Protection Arrangements (MAPPA) , which means that agencies involved monit or closely and intervene dependant on the level of risk they pose.

MAPPA are the statutory arrangements for managing sexual and violent offenders. The Responsible Authority (RA) consists of the Police, Prison and Probation Services. They are charged with the duty and responsibility to ensure that MAPPA is established in their area and for the assessment and management of risk of all identified MAPPA offenders

The purpose of MAPPA is to help to reduce the re -offending behaviour of sexual and violent offen ders in order to protect the public, including previous victims, from serious harm. It aims to do this by ensuring that all relevant agencies work together effectively to: • Identify all relevant offenders; • Complete comprehensive risk assessments that take a dvantage of coordinated information sharing across the agencies; • Devise, implement and review robust Risk Management Plans; • Focus the available resources in a way which best protects the public from serious harm QUESTION No. 38

Priority 2

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

1 MARCH 2010

Question by Councillor Houghton of the Mayor

Question

The letter sent out to residents on the Excalibur E state by the Council on 2 Feb ruary mentions the "key differences" between the stock transfer offer document and the Mayor's preferred option of a phased regeneration scheme. Would the Mayor agree that the lack of a ballot is a "key difference" for tenants that they should be made fully aware of, and if so wh y was this not mentioned in the letter sent out to tenants?

The letter sent to residents on the Excalibur Estate in February explained that the stock transfer option was no longer economically viable due to the economic downturn and the listing de cision which meant that the scheme was reduced by 53 units which in the original proposal would have helped to cross subsidise affordable housing. The regeneration proposal is therefore not a preferred option by the Mayor but an option which can be suppor ted by Government funding through the Homes and Communities Agency.

Whilst a ballot of eligible tenants is not a statutory part of the process for regeneration schemes (unlike a stock transfer) nevertheless it has not been ruled out and my personal pref erence would be to have a ballot. A full and comprehensive consultation process is underway with all residents. As part of this consultation PPCR, as an independent body, have been asked to undertake a survey of residents ’ views on the proposals.

Questi ons that form part of the survey include whether or not each resident supports the demolition and rebuilding of the estate. This question will provide each resident with the opportunity to either agree or disagree with the proposed regeneration scheme and give their reasons. The answers to this question will give officers and members an indication of the level of support for the scheme. The results of the survey will be fed back in a report to Mayor & Cabinet. The report will also set out the implicati ons of undertaking a formal ballot in order that I can then give this matter full consideration. Notwithstanding my preference for a ballot I will also need to consider the implications of any further delays when reaching a decision. QUESTION No. 39

Priority 2

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

1 MARCH 2010

Question by Councillor Peake of the Deputy Mayor

Question

How many private sector jobs have been (a) created, and (b) lost in the borough in the last 12 months, excluding employment within private companies in order to fulfil public sector contracts.

The Office for National Statistics produce the details on the number of employees. The latest statistics for the number of em ployees working in the Borough date back to September 2008 when there were 61,100. Details of the number of jobs in Lewisham after this date are not available. There are no statistics to specifically measure the number of private sector jobs however in Sep tember 2008 there were 37,400 employees not working in Public Admi nistration Education and Health . QUESTION No. 40

Priority 2

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

1 MARCH 2010

Ques tion by Councillor Fletcher of the Cabinet Member for Customer Services

Question

Who was responsible for producing the leaflet "Improvements planned for Southend Park Issue 1 February 2010"? How much did it cost to print and distribute this leaflet? Wh o authorised its production and distribution?

The newsletter was produced by the Council Officer responsible for managing the current Parks and Open Spaces Contract in consultation with local residents, the local police safer neighbourhood team, ward councillors, Phoenix and the Council ’s parks management contractor, Glendale.

500 copies of the news letter were printed, in house, at a cost of £100 . Distribution to addresses in the vicinity of the park was discussed with local residents and was ca rried out by Glendale staff at no additional cost to the council .

The newsletter was produced in res ponse to concerns about anti social behaviour in the park that were raised by local residents at a public meeting in November 2009.

Its purpose was to upd ate local residents on action taken by the Council and its partners in response to those concerns and to encourage residents to form a park user group.

A further update will be produced when further progress is made. QUE STION No. 41

Priority 3

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

1 MARCH 2010

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

Question

Can you assure us that if additional primary classes are housed in temporary buildings that these will be of a high standard so that the learning environment is not undermined by problems with heating and ventilation?

In all but one of the ten schools which have contributed to meeting additional de mand for Reception places in 2008 -09 and 2009 -10, internal remodelling and reorganisation of the existing accommodation has enabled the increases in Reception places. This has been to a good standard as acknowledged by the schools.

This option is increas ingly difficult as the majority of these schools are not amenable to further remodelling of this kind, and many of our remaining 55 mainstream Primaries with Reception age children do not offer the same option. Modern demountable classrooms as an alternati ve option are of a high standard and fully comply with current building regulations , incorporating effective heating systems and natural ventilation. We are confident that any future demountable accommodation for additional classes will be of a high stan dard and be fully fit for purpose. QUESTION No. 42

Priority 3

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

1 MARCH 2010

Question by Councillor Keogh of the Deputy Mayor

Question

Are there any plans to replace the intense omnidirectional lighting at the Wearside Depot that light up the river and neighbouring hill side in Ladywell so disturbing wildlife and people, and instead install downward, energy - efficient lighting should prove more eff ective and cheaper to run without compromising security or health & safety?

There are no plans to replace the lighting at Wearside Depot. Officers will examine the feasibility of changing the lighting or fitting shielding to the current lamps to a lleviate the problem. QUESTION No. 43

Priority 3

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

1 MARCH 2010

Question by Councillor Britton of the Cabinet Member for Resources

Question

Please give the exact figures, and percentages, of the most recent elections in Lewisham, for the three Parliament ary constituencies, the London May or, and the European Parliament?

Date Election Electoral Electorate Ballot Turnout Area Papers % Issued Lewisham 05 -May -05 Parliamentary 58390 30475 52.19 Deptford Lewisham 05 -May -05 Parliamentary 56657 30169 53.25 East Lewisham 05 -May -05 Parliamentary 59176 30937 52.28 West Note this was an Greater electronic London Greenwich 01 -May -08 347252 149471 43.04 count Authority - & Lewisham combined Mayor with Greenwich. London European 10 -Jun -09 Borough of 173461 53408 30.79 Parliamentary Lewisham QUESTION No. 44

Priority 3

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEW ISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

1 MARCH 2010

Question by Councillor Luxton of the Cabinet Member for Customer Services

Question

In September 2008 the Council’s environmental health team served an enforcement notice on 46 Ladywell Road, a long -term derelict pr operty, regarding the state of the property and a pigeon infestation. Please can you outline what steps have been taken since then to bring the property back into a state of repair and whether the notice to carry out works in default will now be carried ou t, given that the owner has not taken any remedial action?

There is a Notice served under section 80 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 that requires the owner to abate a statutory nuisance being caused by pigeons infesting his property thro ugh holes in the rear main roof.

The notice requires the roof be repaired or renewed.

The owner has made no attempt to comply with the notice or accept offers of help made by the Empty Properties Officer. The Council has little option therefore but to carry out the works in his default if this nuisance is to be abated. Officers are currently arranging for the property to be viewed by a contractor to have the roof repaired.

The Council will pursue the owner for all its costs and charges for this work. QUESTION No. 45

Priority 3

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

1 MARCH 2010

Question by Councillor Johnson of the Cabinet Member for Customer Services

Question

In January 2009, we were told that out of the Council’s 1,551 commercial waste contracts with local businesses, 116 of them (7.5%) had recycling contracts. Please could you provide me with updated figures and report on any progress made since then?

The Council has 1,931 commercial waste contracts with local businesses and 197 of them have recycling contracts. This equates to 10.2% take up rate of commercial recycling serv ice out of all the businesses that the Trade Service collect s from .

In terms of progress the trade d epartment inform existing customers of the discounted recycling scheme. The business pages on the Council’ s website are currently being updated which will inform businesses of the services the Council offer as well as information on their legislative requi rements and other useful contacts and links. QUESTION No. 46

Priority 3

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

1 MARCH 2010

Question by Councillor Maines of the Cabinet Member for C ommunity Safety

Question

There appears to have been, over the past few months an increase in the number of injuries and fatalities during house fires in Lewisham. Is this imp ression supported by statistics ? What work is being done by the Council to ens ure a greater awareness of fire prevention and to educate Lewisham residents to be safe from fire ?

The number of accidental dwelling fires (ADF’s) in Lewisham is tracking above target for 2009/10. This trend is repeated across the London boroughs with few exceptions. As a result, the performance measure for both ADF’s and All Primary Fires (of which ADF’s form part) are likely to be above year end outturn targets.

Injuries arising from ADF’s are again tracking above target for 2009/10. As a result, the performance measure will be above year end outturn targets. On a rolling twelve month basis, nine months are well within target figures however, a significant increase in numbers was seen in September, October and November 2009 with 6, 11 and 10 injuries recorded respectively. It should be noted that 22 of these injuries were the result of only 5 fire incidents, each involving multiple casualties. Injuries are largely confined to smoke inhalation requiring hospital checks. To date, Lewisham has seen 4 fatalities in fire incidents in 2009/10. Of these, one is a confirmed murder with fire used in an attempt to conceal the crime. A suspect has been charged. One is a confirmed suicide with fire used as the primary suicide weapon. One is suspected to be murder with Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) and London F ire Brigade enquiries continuing. The most recent fatality is currently being treated as an acci dental death. Again, MPS and London Fire Brigade enquiries are ongoing.

The LFB Borough Command er for Lewisham has introduced a targeted calling methodology for the provision of the free Home Fire Safety Visit (HFSV) provided to Lewisham residents. Targeting is decided utilising an in - house LFB postcode profiling system (i -Rat) which identifies area s of the borough where fires are most likely to occur and where damage/casualties are likely to most significant.

Part of the targeted calling approach involved the provision of home fire safety training to the Lewisham Community Wardens by LFB staff and the introduction of joint HFSV delivery working with these teams. Joint working is gradually increasing as both sets of staff become more accustomed with the approach.

Following the Lakanal House fire in LB Southwark in July 2009, LFB worked closely with the Council staff including Community Warden and Safer Neighbourhood Teams to deliver home fire safety guidance to all Lewisham residents in high rise premises. This approach is now being reviewed by the LFB Borough Commander, The Head of Crime Reduction and Supporting People and the Community Safety Manager. In principle agreement has been reached to commence an ongoing programme of fire safety advice in the form of regular publications for residents pan borough . QUESTION No. 47

Priority 3

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

1 MARCH 2010

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

Question

What has been done each year for the last 5 years to publicise the Youth Parliament elections in schools and youth facilities across Lewisham?

Our efforts have been focussed on the very successful and well received Young Mayor election held in the Autumn of each year. The person s elected in thir d and fourth places in this elec tion become representatives of the young people of Lewisham at both the London Region and N ational levels of the Youth Parliament. This agreement was reached with the Youth Parliament largely in recognition of the robustness , promotion and reach of our Young Mayor Election. At the last election 18335 young people voted at 23 Polling stations set up in schools and colleges across the borough. Early voting was permitted at two Lewisham College sites for four days before day pol l to encourage turnout.

The election is heavily promoted throughout schools and across the Borough. A specialist campaign team is brought in to promote the campaign which consists of advertising in the local press, targeted events at schools an d colleges , videos on You Tube and free distribution of the Electoral Address on behalf of candidates. Hustings are supported a t schools and colleges. Posters , leaflets are provided together with supporting materials such as oyster cards, pens and mugs. QUESTION No. 48

Priority 3

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

1 MARCH 2010

Question by Councillor Russell of the Deputy Mayor

Question

What are the figures, by ward, since the program me start ed in 2004, for the amount of money received from Transport for London for Local Improvement Plan Works both, completed and planned, including a brief description of the works undertaken or planned.

The table below outlines TfL funded schemes by w ard in pounds and runs up to the end of 2008/09. For this financial year 2009/10, £3.4M is being spent, but the breakdown by ward will not be available until the end of year outturn reports are done.

WARD MEASURES 2004 -9 Bellingham Principal road £1,437,966 resur facing, bridges, Buses, 20 mph zone, safety schemes, safer routes to schools and cycling

Brockley Bridges, Bus priority, £1,069,192 accessibility, cycling walking and traffic calming Blackheath Town centre £339,397 improvements, 20mph zones, s afety, Principal roads resurfacing and bus priority Crofton Bus priority, walking, £596,789 Park cycling, accessibility safer routes and 20mph zone

Catford Bus priority, local £376,739 South safety, 20mph, traffic calming, safer routes and environme nt Downham Local safety , traffic £508,752 calming, bus priority, safer routes and walking Evelyn Principal roads, £1,006,062 bridges, safety, cycling and buses Forest Hill Footways, buses, £298,340 safety, and walking improvements Grove Traffic calming, road £1,038,348 Park resurfacing bus priority, traffic calming safety and , environment school travel. Lewisham Bus priority, walking, £740,056 Central cycling ,resurfacing, school travel,20mph zones Ladywell Local safety,20mph £712,665 zones,cycling and buses

Lee Green Bridges, Local safety £442,815 ,bus priority, cycling 20mph zones, safer routes New Cross Cycling, walking and £451,634 buses Perry Vale Safety.walking,school £176,909 travel Local safet y, £304,308 Rushey cycleways and Green walking

Telegraph Principal roads, £259,736 Hill bridges, buses and cycling

Sydenham Local safety, town £865,802 centres, resurfacing and buses Whitefoot Traffic calming, local £422,012 safety, safer routes, environment Borough Local safety, speed £1,518,557 wide detectors, safer routes, projects and reviews, bus stops, local area accessibility, feasibility and review QUESTION No. 49

Priority 3

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

1 MARCH 2010

Question by Councillor Brooks of the Mayor

Question

At a recent public event in Deptford, the Mayor was asked "why it had taken 5 years to install CCTV on the Woodpecker Estate ?" even though they were not o perational at the time of the meeting ? a) Can I please have an answer as to why it took 5 years ? b) Does the Council have a date when these will be working or is it the responsibility of Lewisham Homes to provide security for residents who pay thei r Council Tax ?

Lewisham Homes have been working with the Police and Estate Wardens over the last 3 years to combat Anti Social Behaviour and more serious crimes on the Woodpecker Estate and Milton Court Road locations.

Installing CCTV in the cor rect locations and relaying images to a suitable viewing station is a costly and technically challenging proposition.

During this period of time, technology (particularly in the transmission of images) has moved on considerably, allowing us to install cam eras in locations that would have been ruled out by cost alone when originally conceived. Funding for this project was made available to Lewisham Homes in 2009/10. Lewisham Homes secured funding for another CCTV system in Sydenham at the same time and we re able to share much of the transmission infrastructure which has reduced the overall cost to both projects whilst allowing for future expansion.

The original project at Woodpecker Road is now complete and CCTV is working.

Funding for a further camera is to be made available to extend the system in the near future, subject to consultation with the Police over the most suitable location of the camera. QUESTION No. 50

Priority 3

LONDON BOROU GH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

1 MARCH 2010

Question by Councillor Houghton of the Cabinet Member for Resources

Question

Please list the amount spent annually on communications by the Council since 2002?

The expenditure listed below covers t he costs of the communications team staff, publications and marketing (but does not include recruitment advertising).

2008/09 £1,486,000 2007/08 £1,518,000 2006/07 £1,438,000 2005/06 £1,316,000 2004/05 £1,618,000 2003/04 £1,610,000 2002/03 £1,656,154 QUESTION No. 51

Priority 3

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

1 MARCH 2010

Question by Councillor Peake of the Deputy Mayor

Question

How much investment has the Plan ning Service's economic development service attracted to the borough in the last 12 months?

The Council’s Economic Development Service provides support to start up, retain and grow businesses in the borough. The service works closely with planning officers on planning policy and on bringing forward employment uses in regeneration schemes, particularly mixed use proposals. A free property finder service he lps match businesses which are seeking to locate in the borough with vacant properties and the T own Centre Management Team, work with local businesses and traders associations to promote the borough’s town centres as business locations and to attract investment. The impact of these services is not easily measured in terms of financial investment. I n the last 12 months the service has helped 110 new businesses to start up and 500 small businesses have received advice, training and mentoring. The Council’s Business Adviso ry Service has in the past year helped 179 local small businesses, access 98 cont racts worth £3.28 million.

In the past 12 months the Business Advisory Service has focused on delivering a business recovery service which is designed to help retain businesses through the economic downturn. An evaluation of this service has shown that bu sinesses which are supported are 20% more likely to be trading after 12 months of receiving support. In 2009/10 the Economic Development Service secured £1.45 million of public sector investment into employment, training and business support services for the borough. Since 2001 the service has secured over £2.1 million of European funding to support regeneration in the borough. QUESTION No. 52

Priority 4

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

1 MARCH 2010

Question by Councillor Phoenix of the Mayor

Question

Legal advice received, and reported to council, states that a company may not be excluded from bidding for contracts because section 17 of the Local Government Act 1988 includes as a non -commercial, and therefore immaterial, matter "the location" of a contractor's business activities. Do you accept, however, the argument of the South East London Palestine Solidarity Campaign, that in the case of Veolia's activities in the Jerusalem ar ea the factor raising questions about grave misconduct is not the location but rather the alleged effect of its work in breaching, or being complicit in the violation of, human rights law, UN resolutions and the Geneva Convention, and that this is not list ed as an immaterial concern in section 17? Will you be accepting the invitation of Veolia Transport's CEO to meet the company's international legal officer and would you invite the SELPSC to that meeting?

The legal advice given to the Council in relation to its contracting arrangements with Veolia is unchanged . To summarise the position once again, S 17 of the Local Government Act 1988 prevents authorities from introducing political or other irrelevant considerations into the procurement process . It achieves this by defining certain matters as 'non -commercial' and prohibiting authorities from having regard to these matters in the contractual process. ‘Non -commercial matters’ as examples include the location of the business activities of contrac tors, and political, industrial interests of contractors . The key test is whether the matters would affect the performance of the contract to be awarded. The location of business activities is not relevant where it is not a commercial consideration. The legal view remains that “gra ve misconduct” under the Public Contracts Regulations 2006 relates to the company’s suitability to deliver the particular works or services in question. It does not extend to alleged breaches of international law. I will not be accepting the invitation to meet with the company's international legal officer . I am not legally qualified and can see no purpose in such a meeting. QUESTION No. 53

Priority 4

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

1 MARCH 2010

Question by Councillor Keogh of the Deputy Mayor

Question

When is Sainsbury's likely to start the building development of their New Cross Gate store's car park and other estate buildings? Is there any risk that the questions over Government funding to universities could jeopardise the project given the student accommodation element?

Discussions with Sainsbury’s about the redevelopment of the retail premises at New Cross Gate remain at a relatively early stage. The viability of the scheme has been hampered by the current economic downturn but officers are continuing to work with Sainsbury’s and their consultants, TfL and Network Rail about the role of the scheme in enhancing access to public transport. N o decision has been taken on the inclusion of student accommodation in the scheme or specific partner identified at this stage. QUESTION No. 54

Priority 4

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

1 MA RCH 2010

Question by Councillor Luxton of the Cabinet Member for Customer Services

Question

Please provide an update on when a decision on leaseholder repayment terms for major works bills will be taken?

A proposal on extending leaseholder rep ayment terms for service charges and major works has been sent to Lewisham Homes and Regenter B3 for their leaseholders to consider and provide comments on . It is hoped that a report setting out the extended repayment proposals will be made to M ayor & Cab inet during March for consideration. QUESTION No. 55

Priority 4

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

1 MARCH 2010

Question by Councillor Clutten of the Cabinet Member for Customer Servic es

Question

What percentage of recyclable goods taken to the Materials Recycling Facility are recycled in the UK? If possible, could this please be broken down by product, i.e. glass, plastic, paper etc.

The percentage of materials that are rec ycled in the UK is 49.55% and the percentage of each material type is as follows:

• Aluminium (0.59%) - end destination is with Alutrade Ltd, UK . • Steel (2.71%) - end destination is Eurokey Recycling Ltd, UK . • Old Corrugated Cardboard (7.15%) - end destinatio n is with Independent Waste Paper Processors Association (UK and export) . • Mixed paper (4.9%) - end destination is with St Regis Paper UK. • Mixed Plastic Bottles (15.73%) - end destination is Closed Loop Recycling UK. • Glass (18.47%) – end destination is Berr ymans UK. QUESTION No. 56

Priority 4

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

1 MARCH 2010

Question by Councillor Russell of the Cabinet Member for Customer Services

Question

What are th e latest months figures for t he tonnage or recycling that have been rejected due to contamination.

Over the past three months 842 tonnes of waste has been rejected at the materials recovery facility (MRF) run by Veolia Environmental Services.

Thi s is broken down as follows:

November 487.583 December 177.796 January 177.186 QUESTION No. 57

Priority 4

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

1 MARCH 2010

Question by Councillor Brooks of the Cabinet Member for Resources

Question

How many 18 th birthday cards were sent out by Lewisham Council or their contractors between September 2009 and January 2010 .

Please provide a breakdown of the wards in a table format .

Ward Sep -09 Oct -09 Nov -09 Dec -09 Jan -10 Total

Brockley 3 5 7 5 4 24 Crofton Park 3 4 3 2 11 23 Evelyn 11 6 1 7 4 29 Ladywell 3 6 3 3 7 22 New Cross 5 1 4 4 6 20 Telegraph Hill 9 11 8 3 10 41 Blackheath 3 4 3 1 6 17 Lewisham Central 5 6 4 5 5 25 Downham 5 8 9 8 14 44 Grove Park 3 5 7 5 10 30 Lee Green 6 5 7 5 5 28 Catford South 11 4 4 9 12 40 Whitefoot 4 4 8 5 8 29 Bellingham 6 12 7 8 16 49 Forest Hill 1 4 5 1 2 13 Perry Vale 5 7 3 7 5 27 Rushey Green 5 2 4 3 0 14 Sydenham 9 12 4 3 6 34 Total Atta iners 97 106 91 84 131 509 QUESTION No. 58

Priority 4

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

1 MARCH 2010

Question by Councillor Peake of the Cabinet Member for Resources

Question

How many bulk mailings or mail -merged letters has the Council issued in the last 12 months which include mention of the Mayor and how many individual items of liter ature that amounts to?

The Mayor, and the decisions he takes, are mentioned in a number of l etters and bulk mailings that go out to residents and businesses in the borough each year. These include the Council Tax and Business Rates booklets, letters to residents about resurfacing of roads (30 have been sent this year) and invitations to take part in and attend Council events such as the Mayor’s Business Awards and People’s Day. The Mayor also recently wrote to all residents following the decision of Council to ask the Mayor to encourage the widest possible take -up of Winter Fuel Payments.

Number of mailings in the last 12 months: 36 Number of individual items: 252,550 QUESTION No. 59

Priority 5

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

1 MARCH 2010

Question by Councillor Luxton of the Cabinet Member for Customer Services

Question

In answer to a question I asked in May 2009, I was told that Regenter B3 were looking at the possibility of constructing a living roof utilizing some of the garage roofs they manage. Please can you provi de an update on how many garage roofs have been replaced under the Brockley PFI contract, and of these, how many to date have incorporated living roofs?

The construction of a living roof is still a possibility within the Brockley PFI. This scheme is non contractual and RB3 has had difficulty locating the owners and keys to the majority of the garages. RB3 is now in a better position to consider this scheme and will consult with councillors in the spring time to locate and construct a living roof. QUESTION No. 60

Priority 5

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

1 MARCH 2010

Question by Councillor Brooks of the Cabinet Member for Community Safety

Question

Since June 2009, how many o fficial meetings have been held with the Probation service in Lewisham with a view to preventi ng another Dano Sonnex incident ?

Please state dates, times, those present and agenda.

There had been a number of important reviews and changes to the way the Probation Service operates locally and nationally following the Sonnex incident.

I have monthly meetings with the Assistant Chief Probation Officer, and am aware that she has equally met with senior officers within the Safer Lew Isham Partnership i n relation to your query.

Outside of the immediate organisational and process changes that arose from the review into the Sonnex case, there are 2 standing meetings aimed at better management of dangerous and prolific offenders.

The MAPPA (Multi -Agency Public Protection Arrangements) meetings take place monthly at Catford Police Station. From July 2009 the meetings took place on the following dates: 16/06/2009, 14/07/2009, 11/08/2009, 15/09/2009, 30/09/2009, 13/10/2009, 17/11/2009, 15/12/2009, 13/01/2010 , 17/02/2010. MAPPA meetings are attended by representatives from the following agencies: Probation Service, Approved Premises, Children's Social Care and Health, Housing, Mental Health, Prison, LBL Crime Reduction, Child Protection, Hestia and Douglas House Project.

In addition to those there are PPO (Prolific Priority Offender) Meetings designed around low -level persistent offenders.

The PPO Steering Group is held quarterly : dates include, 25/06/09, 25/09/09, 17/12/09. Representation at the meeting is from probation, LBL crime reduction, community safety and Youth Offending , police, Housing.

In addition, PPO Assessment Panel Meetings are held monthly. There is a standard agenda: review of PPO list, discuss new nominations, update from attendees . PPO Assessment Panel Meetings were held on the following dates: 18/06/09, 30/07/09, 03/09/09, 25/09/09, 08/10/09, 05/11/09, 26/11/09, 17/12/09, 28/01/10, 07/01/10. QUESTION No. 61

Pr iority 6

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

1 MARCH 2010

Question by Councillor Brooks of the Cabinet Member for Community Safety

Question

According to the met police website there are 77 PCSO’s in Lewisham. a) How much f unding does th e Council provide ? b) How much does the Police contribute ? c) Please give a break down of the budget and funding for the past 8 years and projecte d next 4 years?

LBL contribute £250,000 per year towards PCSO’s. The police contribute £ 1,425 ,710 per year.

In line with other public services we are unable to give budget projections beyond the current and forthcoming financial year, as the grant money for police services in England and Wales is provisioned for centrally.

We do not retain exac t data of the cost over the past 8 years, but an approximation can be established by multiplying the above annual figure. QUESTION No. 62

Written Reply

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

1 MARCH 2010

Question by Councillor Walton of the Cabinet Member for Resources

Question

What is the total public service spend in each ward over the last year and is this going to change significantly in 2010/11?”

For clarification purposes this shoul d relate to the combined spending of the NHS, Police and Lewisham in the first instance.

It is not currently possible to provide total public service spending by ward. The Government is supporting 13 “Total Place” pilot reviews, including Lewisha m’s. The first task of these reviews has been to establish the total spend within the Borough. The high level count identified a total of £2.29 billion spent by public agencies in Lewisham in 2008/09; no comparable count has yet been undertaken for the c urrent year, and no forecasts for future years are available.

The total spend has not been broken down by ward. To do so would require highly complex and time -consuming analysis, and it is doubtful that such an exercise would prove productive. This is b ecause the geographical spread of major areas of spend – for example, running a hospital, a police station or a leisure centre – are driven by the physical location of the assets; the benefits of such services, however, are received by people spread across many wards. QUESTION No. 63

Written Reply

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

1 MARCH 2010

Question by Councillor Luxton of the Deputy Mayor

Question

Further to my question in June 2 009, have Council officers had any recent discussions with the owners of Convoys Wharf about the proposals to build a school on the site? Have the discussions focussed purely on primary school provision, or have officers discussed including some secondary school provision? Please can you also confirm whether any discussions have taken place with Greenwich Council about Lewisham utilising the now closed Charlotte Turner Primary School, which is almost adjacent to the Convoys Wharf site?

The Council i s now in ongoing discussions with Hutchison Whampoa, the owners of Convoys Wharf, regarding their proposals for the site. The Council is seeking to secure the delivery of a primary school on the site together with a contribution to the cost of providing of f-site secondary school places.

A variety of options are currently being considered about how to expand our primary place as well as ensure sufficient decant space is available for our building programmes. Officers are liaising with their counterparts in other boroughs so that a strategic response can be taken across borough boundaries.