Agenda, decisions and minutes

Resolved:

The minutes of the meeting held on 9 September were agreed.

Resolved:

The minutes of the meeting held on 9 September were agreed.

Councillor Liam Curran declared an interest as a board member of SELCHP.

Resolved:

The Committee resolved to advise the Public Accounts Select Committee of the following:

The Committee was keen to know what ICT changes and/or new systems were being considered in the areas of asset management and planning, as this was not specified in the proposals.

E1: Structural re-organisation of the Regeneration & Asset Management Division

The Committee noted that it was difficult to comment on the proposal without more detail on the new structure of the reshaped division and information on the areas that would be most affected by staff reductions; and requested that this information be made available as soon as possible.

E2: Optimisation of operational estate

The Committee recognised the potential benefits of increasing the use of school premises outside school hours, but noted that the targets set are ambitious and that it will be difficult to greatly increase the use of school premises for community use. Despite similar statements in the past, previous targets for greater community use of school premises have not yet been achieved.

H1: Restructuring of enforcement and regulatory services

The Committee broadly supported the proposals set out in principle, but asked for more detail and requested that further information is provided on staffing reductions and about what would be different in each of the current service areas in the new model of provision. The Committee were concerned that the proposals could end up being simply a reduction in staffing and wanted to ensure that an opportunity to genuinely restructure services to enable better and more coordinated enforcement across the council would not be missed.

N1: Reduction in maintenance of some small parks, highways and reduced management costs

The Committee recognised the opportunities presented in greater involvement of park user groups. However the Committee felt that the risks associated needed to be properly addressed, including issues around insurance, getting involvement from local communities and properly supporting volunteers.  One suggestion was that sponsorship opportunities could be explored.

N2: Reduction in street cleansing frequencies and cleansing management costs

The Committee highlighted its concerns around this proposal and the potential negative impacts it will have on the borough, including a more negative perception of and loss confidence in the Council and its ability to look after the borough amongst residents, as well a decrease in feeling of community safety.

Selwyn Thompson (Head of Financial Services) introduced the item and highlighted the following key points:

·         The Council faces an £85m budget gap over the three years to 2017/18 with an estimated £39m gap for 2015/16.

·         The report presents £40.6m of new proposals. Of these proposals £29.4m are for 2015/16, with the balance of £11.2m contributing to future year targets.

·         The Council has already achieved savings in excess of £100m over the last 4 years.

E1 (Structural re-organisation of the Regeneration & Asset Management Division)

Rob Holmans (Director of Regeneration and Asset Management) introduced the proposal and highlighted the following key points:

·         Savings will come from a re-organisation that will draw together the existing structures so they become more cohesive. This will enable the sharing of processes and systems and help breakdown silos.

·         The new structure will comprise of 4 key elements: Asset Strategy and Technical Support, Commercial and Investment (including the Programme Management Office), Capital Delivery (Projects and Programmes) and Operational Delivery.

·         There is a proposed £600k saving

In response to questions from the Committee, Kevin Sheehan (Executive Director for Customer Services) and Rob Holmans provided the following information:

·         Savings will come through achieving efficiencies and greater effectiveness in service delivery and by removing posts.

·         The approach will allow a more strategic approach to the use of assets and regeneration as well as combining day to day repairs and maintenance across the property and highways estate into one team. The re-organisation will continue the core service, but in a more efficient manner. 

·         A go-to organisation is an organisation that has processes and systems that are properly established and regarded as best practice. This means that in the future similar functions can be brought into the same team or similar processes can be used by teams carrying out similar functions.

·         An organogram of the new structure was not available for discussion at the meeting. The management team for the new structure is currently being recruited and it is anticipated that the new managers will have input into the detail of the new structure. It is not appropriate at this stageto say in too much detail how the new structure will work before it has been consulted on.

·         The previous year’s saving of £250k has been taken from the budget, although there has been some delay in fully delivering it due to the re-organisation proposed here. The saving proposed will be in addition to the already agreed £250k saving.

·         A lot of effort is put in to make sure that savings from proposals are not counted twice, for example to ensure that savings related to the centralisation of business support services are not also counted in administrative costs savings elsewhere. One role of the Lewisham Future Programme Board is to ensure there isn’t overlap.

·         In previous years the HR implications (such as impacts related to equalities) of saving proposals have been reported to PAC, information will be made available when it is possible to do so.

The Committee then discussed the difficulty in  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

Resolved:

The Committee requested that a draft version of the strategy is brought to a future meeting of the Committee.

Standing orders were suspended in order to enable the completion of Committee business.

Nigel Tyrell (Head of Environment) and Sam Kirk (Strategic Waste & Environment Manager) introduced the presentation and highlighted the following key points:

·         Waste collection generally is driven by the need to reduce the amount of waste going for disposal and increase the amount of recycling. Other local authorities have implemented services to reduce waste going to landfill by offsetting money saved from diverting waste from landfill to other means of disposal.

·         Lewisham’s case is slightly different as Lewisham invested early on in diverting waste and most waste is sent to the SELCHP facility which incinerates waste. Therefore there are no savings to be had from diverting waste from landfill to invest in new services.

·         The Council is in the final 10 years of its contract with SELCHP, after which costs will rise for using SELCHP, so there is a need to think about how waste will be collected and disposed of in the future.

·         The waste collection and disposal market is controlled by a small number of large operators, so it is a narrow marketplace that is easily changed by fluctuations in market forces.

·         Because of the high amount of incinerated waste and the way that recycling figures are calculated, Lewisham’s waste collection performance looks a lot worse than it actually is.

·         New Waste Regulations introduced in 2012 have changed requirements around collection and disposal and mean that local authorities should collect glass, metal, paper and plastic separately unless it is not technically, environmentally and economically practicable (TEEP) to do so.

·         Options for a changed service have been explored, with some options ruled out due to cost or non-compliance with regulations.

·         Initial costings have been carried out using the current marketplace and building in assumptions, but more sensitivity testing and updating will be done before firmer proposals come forward.

In response to questions from the Committee, Nigel Tyrell, Sam Kirk and Kevin Sheehan (Executive Director for Customer Services) provided the following information:

·         The proposed garden waste service would be an opt-in service, where people pay by direct debit and would opt out to stop receiving the service. Administration and sales support will need to be built into the service.

·         The garden waste bin will be on hire, using a similar approach to that used for trade waste. Different approaches are being considered to make sure that the service is effective and properly funded.

·         The new approach is based on street level properties. Flats, blocks and estates will need to be looked at separately.

·         The bin lids for large estate bins are being changed to make them more secure.

·         After 2024 the costs for using SELCHP will go up massively for Lewisham. When the current contract ends the good price we get now will end. It is likely that the plant itself will continue to function as a facility, and at the present time it is commercially viable.

·         A lot more work needs to be carried out on the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

Resolved:

The Committee noted the report.

Ralph Wilkinson (Head of Public Services) introduced the report and highlighted the following key points

·         This is the second annual parking report that has been produced and provides information on the finances and performance of the service.

·         As part of the new parking contract a new paperless permitting system was introduced as well as cashless parking and improved efficiencies. The contract included a lot of changes, which meant there was a difficult start to managing it, but this has now settled down and performance has improved.

·         63 000 Penalty Charge Notices were issued in 2013/14 as well as 8000 parking permits.

·         A prioritisation programme for CPZs has been developed and approved. A new team has been established to design the CPZs and undertake the consultation process in relation to parking demand. This service is shared with the London Borough of Southwark.

·         There is a Mayoral commitment to review pricing in support of local businesses, which will be carried out in the near future.

·         The service collected £7.5m in 2013/14, with £2.3m costs.

In response to questions from the Committee, Ralph Wilkinson provided the following information:

·         The Council must follow the government guidelines on the level of enforcement. Lewisham uses vehicles to identify enforcement infringements then despatch someone to carry out the enforcement action.

·         40% of contact for parking permits is via the phone, but officers are looking to move this increasing online in order to speed up the process and reduce the cost. Work around online transitions has been carried out elsewhere in the directorate so this experience and knowledge can be used.

·         There are no plans for changing Holbeach car park at the moment. The income is up to the level it was before the increase in charges, although charges will be looked at.

·         Communications with local residents and councillors is an important part of the process before doing a review on CPZ.

Resolved:

The Committee noted the report.

Resolved:

The Committee agreed the key lines of inquiry and timetable, opting to have 2 evidence sessions.

The Committee discussed the scoping paper, including the option of having a second evidence session to allow members of the community and interest groups to be involved in the review.

Resolved:

The Committee agreed the key lines of inquiry and timetable, opting to have 2 evidence sessions.

Resolved:

The Committee agreed the work programme.

Resolved:

The Committee agreed the work programme.

There were none.