Agenda, decisions and minutes

Resolved: that the minutes of the meeting held on the 11 December 2013 be accepted as an accurate record.

Resolved: that the minutes of the meeting held on the 11 December 2013 be accepted as an accurate record.

None declared.

None declared.

Resolved: to accept the response.

Resolved: to accept the response.

Resolved: to accept the response.

John Miller (Head of Planning) introduced the response. The key points to note were:

• Measures for the protection of pubs were being considered as part of the Council’s proposed development management local plans.
• In December 2012, the Mayor had agreed to the local listing of 20 Lewisham pubs.
• The general use of article four directions for the protection of local pubs was now being considered.

In response to questions from the Committee, John Miller advised:

• The new policy being developed might be useful to other boroughs which were looking to develop best practice in this area.
• The information gathered for the evidence base study provided a good foundation from which to commission additional work.
• The timescale for the delivery of the changes in the report was approximately 18 months.
• Further updates would be brought back to the committee as required.

Resolved: to accept the response.

Resolved: officers to provide regular updates on the implementation of the CPZ review and the development of the policy prioritisation process.

Ralph Wilkinson (Head of Public Services) introduced the Parking Policy Review – Conclusions and Recommendations report, the key points to note were:

• A decision on the parking enforcement contract was due to be made by Mayor and Cabinet on 10 April 2013, at the same meeting as the consideration of the parking policy review conclusions and recommendations report.
• Recommendations in the parking policy report were intended to achieve a fair balance between a range of competing factors. However, it was difficult to find balance in some areas because there was very little agreement on the issues raised.
• The report was split into three principle sections: a summary of issues; recommendations; detailed analysis in the appendices.

Controlled parking zones

• The process for determining the extent and the operating hours of controlled parking zones (CPZs) was a primary issue of concern raised by the consultation.
• People tended to only want a CPZ when they has a problem in their immediate vicinity. This led to a number of incongruous roads being included or excluded from CPZs. ‘Overspill’ problems had been created in some areas, where the implementation of a CPZ had merely pushed parking problems from one road to another.
• Officers were putting forward a set of key principles for the new parking policy; amongst these was the recommendation that CPZs should be implemented when 50% voted in favour, based on a minimum 10% turnout.
• Future proposals for CPZs would be developed around whole areas rather than individual streets (as had sometimes been the case in the past)
• There remained a series of difficult problems, on which there tended to be very little consensus. In particular, people did not tend to vote for a CPZ unless they had a specific parking issue.
• In future, officers would continue to balance local intelligence with professional intelligence to assess the issues arising in a specific area. The aim would be to include all areas in CPZ consultations where there was the potential for problems.
• CPZ consultation process would be formalised and consultation on new zones would follow a standardised approach. The aim would be to anticipate and deal with parking issues by engaging in timely and effective communication.
• The framework for implementing new CPZs would be flexible enough to allow for local variations.
• The Council had a responsibility to deal with issues created by new building and regeneration. Where professional opinion indicated that there would be a potential parking problem in the vicinity of a new development, solutions would be presented to Mayor and Cabinet in order to influence development of CPZ without an actual vote. This would ensure timely pre-emptive action.

Charges

• Parking charges would remain at the new recommended levels (should they be accepted) until 2015/16 and be reviewed annually from then on.
• The report set out two options for resident parking permits. The first would be to retain the current flat-rate charge; and the second would to split the cost of permits between first and subsequent cars owned by a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

Resolved – to refer the Committee’s views to the Public Accounts Select Committee.

Mark Humphreys (Group Finance Manager, Customer Services) introduced the savings report. The key points to note were:

• In the Autumn (when scrutiny committees considered the first round savings proposals) officers set out a range of possible funding scenarios. It was anticipated that the Council would be required to make a £30m-£50m saving over the 2013-15 period.
• The subsequent financial settlement from Government represented the worst case scenario. The Council would be required to save £53.5m over this period. Meaning £21.3m needed to be saved in 2013/14 and £32.2m in 14/15.
• Previously, savings of £4.6m had been identified for 13/14. In the Autumn savings proposals £27.5m of savings were identified for 13-15, including £13m of savings for 14/15.
• The report being put before members identified further savings of £2.8m for 13/14 and £5.6m of savings for 14/15. This meant that whilst the budget would be balanced in 13/14 there remained a gap of £13m in 14/15.
• The financial situation facing the Council remained extremely challenging.

Customer services savings proposals

CUS40 (A move from weekly to fortnightly recycling)

Nigel Tyrell (Head of Environment) introduced the saving, the key points to note were:

• The implementation of the proposal would lead to the loss of 20 staff members and reduce the number of refuse vehicles used by the service.
• There were some significant risks to the achievability of the saving.
• The exact level of saving could not accurately be predicted but the changes would result in a saving of approximately £0.5m.
• Concerns about waste volumes had been taken into account. Consideration might need to be given to how larger volumes of recycling would be stored in residents’ homes, the availability of street bulk facilities, and potential increases in fly-tipping.

CUS41 (Review of the regulatory services across strategic housing and environment divisions)

Kevin Sheehan (Executive Director for Customer Services) introduced the savings proposal. The key points to note were:

• Frontline enforcement would be protected.
• The number of managers in relation to the numbers of staff across all areas of regulation and enforcement was being reviewed.
• The proposal would reduce the number of managers.

In response to questions from the Committee Kevin Sheehan advised:

• Enforcement capacity would be maintained.
• A consultation with staff would need to take place before any changes could be implemented.

Planning and economic development savings proposals

John Miller (Head of Planning) introduced the proposals. The key point to note was:

• Planning and economic development had made significant savings in previous years. The proposal put forward in the first round – for the implementation of locally set planning fees was being delayed by central government but it was still anticipated that these measures would be put in place.

RNR33 (Reduction in economic development delivery budget)

John Miller introduced the saving proposal. The key points to note were:

• The Economic Development team had been completely restructured during the previous round of savings.
• The restructure resulted in a number of redundancies and left a small strategic development team.
• The saving would reduce the team’s  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Resolved: to agree the work programme.

Resolved:

• To agreed the work programme for the final meeting of the municipal year.
• To invite a representative of the Grove Park Community Group to speak about neighbourhood planning.
• To move the item on recycling to the 13/14 work programme.

Resolved: In accordance with the agreed process for the scrutiny of the budget proposals the Committee resolved to refer its views to the Public Accounts Select Committee meeting scheduled for 7 February 2013.