Menu

Agenda, decisions and minutes

Contact: Timothy Andrew Email: (timothy.andrew@lewisham.gov.uk) 

Items
No. Item

1.

Minutes of the meeting held on 29 October 2018 pdf icon PDF 248 KB

Decision:

Resolved: that the minutes of the meeting held on 29 October be agreed as an accurate record.

Minutes:

1.1    Resolved: that the minutes of the meeting held on 29 October be agreed as an accurate record.

2.

Declarations of interest pdf icon PDF 201 KB

Minutes:

2.1    Councilor Curran declared interests in relation to item four as: Director of the Baring Trust; a member of CAMRA (Campaign for Real Ale) and a supporter of the FairPint Campaign.

2.2    Councillor Ingleby declared an interest in relation to item four as a member of the Musicians’ Union (which supports the performance of live music in pubs)

2.3    Councillor Walsh declared an interest in relation to item four as a previous resident of a Lewisham pub/relative of a publican.

3.

Responses from Mayor and Cabinet pdf icon PDF 130 KB

Additional documents:

Minutes:

3.1       The Committee noted the response from Mayor and Cabinet.

4.

Pubs review update pdf icon PDF 101 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved - that the Committee would receive a report with the evidence gathered before making recommendations to Mayor and Cabinet.

Minutes:

4.1    Councillor Curran invited guests to present their views about the protection of pubs in Lewisham (written responses to a call for evidence for this session are appended to the agenda).

 

4.2    Stephen Kenny (Chair of the Baring Hall Trust/Grove Park Neighbourhood Forum) addressed the Committee, the following key points were noted:

·         At the time of the Committee’s previous ‘preserving local pubs review’ The Baring Hall Hotel (a Lewisham pub) was locally listed and included on the Council’s register of assets of community value.

·         Despite the protections that were in place a developer had submitted proposals for housing on part of the pub site. The application was turned down (and appeal was rejected by the inspectorate).

·         The pub had subsequently been nationally listed – but the threat to the viability of the business from inappropriate short term housing development remained.

·         A reduction in business rates for publicans would be welcomed.

·         Careful consideration should be given to the rules around residential accommodation above pubs.

·         Development should not be permitted in the grounds surrounding pubs.

·         The Baring Hall Hotel had been under threat of demolition but its subsequent listing demonstrated how vulnerable pubs were to development.

 

4.3    Stephen Kenny responded to questions from the Committee, the following key points were noted:

·         It was agreed that any reduction in business rates would need to be matched by provision of space in pub buildings that was available for the community.

·         The principal consideration for the use of a pub building should be the viability of the pub business.

·         Previous plans for development of the Baring Hall Hotel did not take all the relevant information into consideration. Often developers wanted to make the case for development – rather than ensure the sustainability of pub businesses.

 

4.4    Gary Mallen (Publican) addressed the Committee, the following key point was noted:

·         He was the operator of ten pubs in London (including one in Lewisham)

 

4.5    Gary Mallen responded to questions from the Committee, the following key points were noted:

·         He took over the operation of the Lord Northbrook Pub in Lewisham, which had been poorly run.

·         He had been determined to ensure that the pub provided a quality service for the local community, which made it a success.

·         One of the obstacles to renovating the pub was the level of requirement from building control for the residential space above the pub – which had to meet a level of standards designed for independent property, rather than that which was integral to the running of the business.

·         Significant levels of work were required for some pubs to ensure that they met regulations.

·         Accommodation for pub businesses was important for retaining staff because of the high cost of housing in London.

·         Attracting good people was key to the success of running a good pub business.

·         New pub developments didn’t always include space for kitchens/serving food/or other facilities (especially those below new accommodation) – which meant they were more likely to fail.

·         Plans that were submitted for new pubs that were  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

5.

Community Infrastructure Levy neighbourhood CIL strategy pdf icon PDF 100 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved: that the Committee would refer its views under this item to Mayor and Cabinet.

Minutes:

5.1    The Chair of the Committee welcomed Councillors Kelleher and Holland, who were attending the meeting under standing orders. He noted the general feeling amongst Councillors that, whilst they understood the reasons for linking the proposals for neighbourhood Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) spending to the timetable for the decision about the local assembly funding, they were separate proposals. He reasoned that additional time should be spent on developing the CIL proposals to ensure that they were right.

 

5.2    David Syme (Strategic Planning Manager) introduced the report, the following key points were noted:

·         The proposals had been developed based on a set of principles (as follows).

·         Firstly, that there should an equitable distribution of funding. Officers recognised that the impact of development could be felt more broadly than the area that immediately surrounded development – and that wider pressures could be felt on public transport, cycling routes and green spaces away from a major development.

·         It was recognised that a large proportion of current development made use of strategic industrial land in the north of the borough so officers had put forward a mechanism for distribution that took into account areas with most need and included those that did not have large amounts of development land available.

·         The second principle was to ensure that the administration of the funds was workable. It was recognised that the process would be complex – so the intention was to link the proposals with existing structures. This reflected the process recommended in the CIL regulations (recognising existing mechanisms and boundaries.)

·         Other options had been explored, including: the option to combine wards; to create larger sub-areas or the creation of a single pot of funding for the entire borough.

·         It was felt that ward assemblies, as an established mechanism with a firm standing in the community, would be most appropriate.

·         The third principle was to ensure that the process was transparent. The process of allocating neighbourhood CIL would be carried out in stages. The planning service would work with the communities team (which supports local assemblies) to strengthen processes and develop best practice.

·         The fourth principle was to make sure that the proposals aligned with the Council’s corporate strategies. It was recognised that all funding was precious and that funding had to be spent in a meaningful way, with maximum impact.

·         The fifth principle was to ensure that the strategy could be agreed. It had been three years since the Council had started to collect CIL and two years since the process of a neighbourhood CIL strategy had been started. The Council wanted to see the funding being used.

·         Officers had been working on developing the proposals since 2016. The Committee had been given a number of updates on the proposals.

·         The sixth principle was to develop the strategy within the framework of the CIL regulations. There were things that the Council could and could not do, according to the legislation.

·         Consideration had been given to best practice from across London.

·         There has been a pilot  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

6.

Annual parking report pdf icon PDF 682 KB

Decision:

Resolved: that the Committee would refer its views under this item to Mayor and Cabinet.

 

Minutes:

Items six and seven were considered together.

 

6.1    Seamus Adams (Parking Services Manager) introduced the annual parking report, the following key points were noted:

·         There has been a steady increase in penalty charge notices as well as permits issued to residents and businesses.

·         There had been a 38% increase in cashless payments for parking.

·         Proposals were being developed for parking payment machines in the borough.

·         Overall the performance of the parking enforcement provider had been good throughout the year.

 

6.2    Seamus Adams, Simon Moss (Group Manager Highways and Transport) and Ralph Wilkinson (Head of Public Services) responded to questions from the Committee, the following key points were noted:

·         The number of enforcement agents had been increased last year – six agents had been added – making the total for the borough 30 agents.

·         The level of enforcement activity was under constant review.

·         Decisions to increase levels of enforcement were taken on a case by case basis – depending levels of infringement as well as requests from councillors and members of the public.

·         CCTV could only be used on some types of infringement.

·         Increasing digitisation would enable agents to cover more area.

·         The surplus created by the parking service was ring-fenced for spending on highways and transport. The Council spent more than this sum on highways and transport in the borough.

·         There was a prioritisation programme for controlled parking zones. The process could accommodate requests for the removal of controlled parking zones although no request to remove a zone had been yet been made.

·         There would be a new process for prioritising controlled parking zone consultations. The aim was to ensure that resources were not spent on carrying out consultations with residents that resulted in a vote against the implementation of a new zone.

·         Key performance indicators for the extension of the parking contract were based on standard measures for the delivery of parking services.

·         There was no proposal for a new borough wide controlled parking zone.

·         The borough wide review would give a view from the whole borough about priorities.

·         Officers were planning to use online platforms for the borough wide controlled parking zone consultation. There were concerns about using polling stations for controlled parking zone consultations given the potential legal and logistical complications of doing so.

·         Officers did not intend on carrying out consultations on the implementation of two hour zones where it was clear that a two hour zone would be difficult to implement and enforce.

·         Officers would give consideration to the schedules of enforcement agents to make their rounds less predictable.

·         The provision of free visitor permits had been introduced to mitigate the impact of increases in fees for resident parking permits.

·         Administration of the permit scheme was more expensive than the value of the parking so the intention was to target free permits towards those most in need.

·         Residents could request parking permits for carers. People with Blue Badges received a free resident’s permit.

·         Officers would raise the issue of enforcement on red routes with TfL  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

7.

Parking policy review pdf icon PDF 673 KB

Decision:

Resolved: that the Committee would refer its views under this item to Mayor and Cabinet.

 

Minutes:

7.1    This item was considered alongside item six.

8.

Lewisham Local Plan update

Officers will provide a verbal update at the meeting.

Minutes:

8.1    David Syme provided a short update. The following key points were noted:

·         The evidence base for the plan was still being developed and should be completed by the end of the financial year.

·         A consultation on the Lewisham character study would take place early in 2019 – and officers would be seeking input from the Committee.

·         Site portfolio work was also continuing. The call for sites enabled developers and landowners to submit sites for consideration.

·         The draft London Plan had been delayed. Lewisham was taking legal advice to decide whether Lewisham should delay the Local Plan in order to meet the timetable for the London Plan.

9.

Select Committee work programme pdf icon PDF 247 KB

Additional documents:

Decision:

Resolved: that the waste strategy should be an information item – and that the Committee would consider an update on the performance of the planning service at a future meeting. Further information would be provided about the work the Council was carrying out relating to fire safety in tall buildings.

Minutes:

9.1    The Committee discussed the work programme.

 

9.2    Resolved: that the waste strategy should be an information item – and that the Committee would consider an update on the performance of the planning service at a future meeting. Further information would be provided about the work the Council was carrying out relating to fire safety in tall buildings.

 

 

10.

Items to be referred to Mayor and Cabinet

Decision:

Resolved: that the Committee’s comments under items five, six and seven be referred to Mayor and Cabinet for consideration.

Minutes:

10.1  Resolved: that the Committee’s comments under items five, six and seven be referred to Mayor and Cabinet for consideration.