Venue: Committee room 3
Contact: Timothy Andrew Email: (email@example.com)
Resolved: that the minutes of the meeting held on 11 December be agreed as an accurate record.
1.1 Resolved: that the minutes of the meeting held on 11 December be agreed as an accurate record.
2.1 Councillor Ingleby declared a personal interest in relation to item 8 as the Chair of the Grove Park Nature Reserve.
Responses from Mayor and Cabinet
A response to the Committee’s 8 November referral on the Broadway theatre will be provided under item four.
Resolved: to note the response on to the Committee’s referral on the Broadway theatre provided under item four.
3.1 Resolved: to note the response on to the Committee’s referral on the Broadway theatre provided under item four.
Resolved: that the report be noted.
4.1 Aileen Buckton (Executive Director for Community Services) introduced the report, the following key points were noted:
· There were specific issues relating to the theatre that dictated how it could be run and managed.
· It was a grade two listed building. It was a treasured icon locally.
· The listing meant that any proposed changed to the building would require careful consideration, time and resources to carry out.
· The building was originally built as a music hall – not as a purpose built theatre.
· There were limitations to the scale of productions that could be staged at the theatre.
· There was no mechanical access for deliveries to the theatre. Any staging and equipment required for productions in the Broadway had to be carried in. This proposed health and safety issues.
· Local authority financial regulations meant that the theatre’s budget had to balance each year. This was not the case for commercially run theatres, which could take greater risks.
· In 2013, in line with the Council’s overall budget reduction programme the theatre’s subsidy was substantially reduced.
· The dedicated theatre budget had been reduced by 72% since 2013/14; earned income from the theatre programme was 59% of turnover in 2014; earned income was now 88% of turnover.
· In the first full year of budget reductions (which also entailed a staffing restructure) the theatre made a budget surplus of £65k. This could not be carried forward from one year to the next because of the Council’s overall financial positon.
· Given the reduction in resources as well as the repairs and maintenance required to the building a decision was taken to reduce the theatre programme (rather than to close it altogether).
· As of last year – theatre income had increased. Further changes were required in the building to unlock sources of income.
4.2 Carmel O’Connor (Operations Manager, Broadway theatre) and Helen Haylett (Sales and Marketing Manager, Broadway theatre) introduced a presentation – which is included with the committee papers. It included a summary of current activity taking place at the theatre as well as plans for future events and programming such as work with community groups, club nights, commercial hires and potential partnerships with other theatres.
4.3 Liz Dart (Head of Culture and Community Development) addressed the Committee, the following key points were noted:
· Officers from the Community Services Directorate had been working with colleagues in the Resources and Regeneration directorate to identify funding options for improvements to the theatre building.
· As a result, £1.2m of capital funding had been identified for the theatre.
· A cross directorate working group for the theatre had been established to oversee works to the theatre.
· The programme of minor works had been identified and the cost of implementing it had been worked out.
· A conservation management plan for the building had been commissioned. The final report was due at the end of March.
· The management plan would help to further refine the work that needed to take place to maintain and develop the theatre.
4.3 Aileen Buckton, Liz Dart, ... view the full minutes text for item 4.
Resolved: that the report be noted. It was also agreed that once a masterplanner was appointed, they would be invited to present to the Committee.
5.1 Kplom Lotsu (Service Group Manager, Capital Programmes) introduced the report, the following key points were noted:
· Further work had taken place to develop a masterplan brief for the regeneration of Catford.
· Comments from the Committee had been incorporated into the brief, where possible.
· It set out the key objectives for the redevelopment of the town centre.
· Key dates for the development and agreement of the masteplan had been included in the report.
5.2 In the Committee discussion that followed, the following key points were noted:
· The Committee welcomed the clarity and plainness of the language in the brief.
· Members believed that the following should be emphasised in the report: walking, cycling and human scale; air quality; the role of Catford as a civic centre and; accessibility for disabled people, should be emphasised in the report.
· Some Members believed that consideration should also be given to potential higher education uses in the town centre.
· The Committee welcomed efforts that were being made to work with colleagues in the Council’s libraries service.
· There was some concern that there were unequal levels of engagement from residents in the north and south of the town centre.
· However, the Committee commended the work that the programme team was carrying out in the local community and noted that it was an example of good practice.
· Members were concerned about the potential negative impacts of gentrification.
· The Committee wished to highlight the sensitivity about the impact of tall buildings on the town centre, Members recalled the campaign against the proposed tower in the Catford Green development.
· The Committee would welcome further customer experience mapping for bus movements in the new development.
· The Committee suggested that the key issues it highlighted be included somewhere prominently in the key objectives for the masterplan brief.
· The Committee also noted the additional documents and due diligence that officers were preparing and undertaking to support the delivery of the masterplan.
· The study area spanned an 800m radius from a defined point in the town centre, however this was not tightly defined.
5.3 Resolved: that the report be noted. It was also agreed that once a masterplanner was appointed, they would be invited to present to the Committee.
Resolved: that the report be noted. It was also agreed that officers would provide additional information regarding: issues surrounding the implementation of the controlled parking zone in Brockley; progress with the lamppost electric vehicle charging project in Lewisham; parking enforcement near schools.
6.1 Ralph Wilkinson (Head of Public Services) introduced the report. The following key points were noted:
· Information about the performance of the parking service was included in the report.
· The Council had 13 car parks and 22 controlled parking zones encompassing 21 thousand parking spaces in the borough.
· Good progress was being made with the implementation of the controlled parking zone programme.
· More penalty charge notices were being issued as a result of the new controlled parking zones in the borough. However, there had not been a resulting increase in the number of appeals and complaints.
· More people were using cashless payments for parking.
· Work carried out in the last year was designed to improve the service whilst reducing costs.
· The report also provided a breakdown of the financial performance of the service.
6.2 Ralph Wilkinson, James Cook (Emergency Planning, Business Continuity and Parking Service Group Manager) and Kevin Sheehan (Executive Director for Customer Services) responded to questions from the Committee, the following key points were noted:
· Enforcement agents had rules they had to operate by. However, officers would consider concerns about any specific areas which councillors highlighted regarding the fairness or quality of enforcement.
· Complaints and comments were received from members of the public about areas of insufficient parking enforcement – as well as those about excessive enforcement activity. The challenge was to find a balance.
· Officers recognised concerns about the implementation of the controlled parking zone in Brockley. The timing of the new programme was over ambitious and officers lacked the resources to implement it successfully. There were also pressures on cost and in managing relationships with contractors. Lessons had been learned.
· Complaints were logged on the Council’s iCasework system. A single complaint that was dealt with by multiple people would be logged as a single complaint unless it was escalated from an informal to a formal complaint or if the person making the complaint raised a separate case about the way their complaint was being dealt with.
· Enforcement agents were tasked with visiting controlled parking zones at critical times.
· There were 20 agents working during the week and a small number at weekends.
· Agents were moved around the borough to deal with trouble areas. Officers were currently considering the level and cost of enforcement activity.
· The times for controlled parking zones had been voted on by local residents. It was a challenge to balance the constantly increasing demand for parking.
· Any changes to a controlled parking zone required consultation and significant resources.
· The controlled parking zone programme had been agreed following discussion and consultation. The focus had been on the implementation of new zones. The programme for the review of existing zones was behind areas that had no parking controls in place.
· There was a school deployment plan for parking enforcement around schools. Priority schools were visited by agents once a week others were visited once a fortnight. A review of the plan was currently taking place with officers in the Children and Young People directorate.
· Some ... view the full minutes text for item 6.
Resolved: that the report be noted.
7.1 Wendy Nicholas (Strategic Waste and Environment Manager) introduced the report, the following key points were noted:
· The report provided an update on the new arrangements for the food and fortnightly collection service that had begun in the autumn of 2017.
· There had been some teething problems, which were to be expected as a result of a major service change. The principal problem was that of missed collections as crews got to know their new rounds, work in different neighbourhoods and negotiate access issues.
· Quality checks were being carried out to ensure that the new services met the agreed standards.
· There had been an increase in the number of complaints resulting from the implementation of the new service.
· Waste advisors had carried out a pre-implementation survey. In February a post implementation survey would be carried out – and areas with low levels of recycling would be targeted for further engagement activity.
· Advisors had carried out roadshows and ‘door knocking’ reaching more than 15 thousand residents. Feedback from the advisors was that residents were broadly satisfied with the new services.
· There had been a slight increase in the number of missed collections following the implementation of the new service. This had decreased substantially in the following months.
· Complaints and casework had increased substantially (59% in October and 46% in November) but there had been a significant decrease in the number of complaints in December.
· Tonnages of food recycling had increased month on month following the implementation of the new service.
· Recycling, composting and reuse figures had increased from 16.11% in September to 24% in October.
· The percentage of waste being sent for incineration had also reduced.
7.2 Wendy Nicholas, Nigel Tyrell (Head of Environmental Services) and Kevin Sheehan responded to questions from the Committee, the following key points were noted:
· Recycling rates had substantially increased.
· The overall amount of waste being collected had also reduced.
· The problems that had been experienced as part of the implementation were relatively small, especially in comparison to some other areas of London that had implemented new services.
· Food and garden waste collections were separated.
· Officers were currently trying to negotiate an extension to the contract for the borough’s waste incinerator.
· The option for kerb side sorting of waste had been explored at the time of renegotiating the new waste and recycling contract but the costs, logistics and level of labour required to carry this out were prohibitive.
· It was recognised that there was some potential confusion among residents about things that could and could not be recycled, especially different kinds of plastic.
· Work was taking place at a national level to simplify recycling symbols on plastic but there was lots of complexity in the supply chain.
· The new food recycling collection was being composted in Britain for reuse here. This was not the case with all of the different kinds of recycling.
· Contamination tags were used for food bins that contained items other than food. Bins were not routinely taken away from residents for misuse. ... view the full minutes text for item 7.
Resolved: that the information update be noted.
This item was considered after item four.
8.1 Councillor Ingleby addressed the Committee, the following key points were noted:
· There were three part of the regeneration of the park including, the recreation of the 18 century landscape of the park, nature and ecology and the use of the park for biking he had questions about:
1. What measures would be taken to prevent the stagnation of the water in the new lake which was planned for the park?
2. What role had the forestry commission and the woodland trust played in the plans for regeneration?
3. Would there be further opportunities for consultation with local people about the vision for the park?
8.2 Resolved: that the information update be noted. It was also agreed that Councillor Ingleby’s questions would be forwarded to officers working on the regeneration of Beckenham Place Park.
Resolved: that the agenda for the meeting on 22 March be agreed.
8.1 The Committee discussed the work programme for its meeting on 22 March, the following key points were noted:
· Items on the agenda were: markets, the Catford regeneration programme, work and skills strategy and home energy conservation.
· The Committee was divided about the value of discussing the regeneration programme for Beckenham Place Park at the meeting on 22 March. Some Members highlighted concerns that had been raised with them by Members of the public. Others noted that the plans for the park had been subject to scrutiny and that the decision to approve plans for the regeneration of the park had been taken.
8.2 Resolved: that the agenda for the meeting on 22 March be agreed.
Items to be referred to Mayor and Cabinet