Agenda, decisions and minutes

RESOLVED: That: The minutes of the meeting held on 11 November 2014 be signed as an accurate record of the meeting.

1.1      RESOLVED: That:

The minutes of the meeting held on 11 November 2014 be signed as an accurate record of the meeting.

2.1      There was a declaration of interest from Councillor Jeffrey regarding a relative affected by Agenda Item no. 4: Lewisham Future Programme.

RESOLVED: That the Committee:

a)         Note the evidence presented.

b)         Consider the evidence as part of its Modern Roads Review Report.

3.1      Jeremy Leach, London Campaign Co-ordinator, ‘20s Plenty For Us’ gave a presentation to the Committee. The key points to note were:

§  56% of those killed or seriously injured in the borough are on TfL-managed streets and 44% were on Lewisham managed roads and 80% of killed and seriously injured casualties in the borough occurred on A or B classified roads.

§  The British Social Attitudes Survey of 2011 showed that 73% of respondents favoured 20mph zones for residential roads.

§  Road speeds: some examples of the benefits in areas that have introduced 20mph limits:

o   Portsmouth - reduction in the average speed of 1.3 mph. Average fall of 6.3mph at sites with speeds greater than 24 mph.

o   Islington (2013) - average speeds fell on 18 of the 29 main roads researched and rose on 10 of them. Estimated that average speeds across the borough fell by 1mph.

§  The London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine conducted a study into the impact of 300+ 20mph zones between1986 -2006 and this showed a 42% decline in road casualties. A Lancashire County Council study in 2012 showed that three pilot 20mph zones resulted in a 46% reduction in casualties. A study in Edinburgh last year on its 20mph pilot showed that:

o   Those considering cycling to be unsafe fell from 26% to 18%

o   Children cycling to school rose from 4% to 12%

o   Older primary age children cycling to school rose from 3% to 22%.

§  In respect of compliance of 20mph limits, ACPO policy changed in October 2013, which noted that, “enforcement will be considered in all clearly posted limits…rest assured, deliberate high harm offenders will always be targeted and they will be prosecuted.” City of London (CoL) Police began issuing fixed penalty notices since CoL adopted authority-wide 20mph limit in July 2014. In terms of community monitoring, Community Road Watch’ is currently conducting trials in Southwark, Islington and Lambeth. This is a programme that empowers local people to act against drivers who speed on their streets.

§  TfL are now open to proposals from boroughs that are introducing 20mph limit. to include appropriate Transport for London Route Network (TLRN) roads

3.2       In response to questions from the Committee, the following was noted:

§  To ensure the 20mph limit policy is implemented effectively, the Council should:

o   Work closely with the borough police

o   Have a proactive education programme and use local groups and facilities. For example, Liverpool City Council involved Liverpool and Everton Football Clubs in its communications strategy.

§  Implementation of a 20mph zone will also be successful if you get the appropriate changes in driver behaviour on the roads and excellent signage as drivers enter and exit the borough.

§  Traffic speed in Lewisham is approximately 27mph in free-flowing traffic.

§  TfL are conducting trials on a number of routes to measure the impact of 20mph on Red Routes.

§  TfL have also embraced the Community Road Watch programme, forming  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

RESOLVED: That the Committee would refer to Public Accounts Select Committee the Budget Savings proposals N1 and N2:

a)     The consultation on N1 should be considered by all Local Assemblies, to increase public engagement.

b)     The results of the consultation on N1, plus any proposals derived from the consultation, must be presented to the Select Committee for consideration and scrutiny.

c)      There should be no closure of any of the borough’s parks.

4.1      Rob Holmans (Director of Regeneration and Asset Management) introduced the report for proposal ‘E1: Structural re-organisation of the Regeneration & Asset Management division’ to the Committee. The key points to note were:

§  Staff consultation on the proposals commenced on 18 December 2014 and was due to end 12th January but a short extension was agreed till 14th January. The feedback and management response will be incorporated into a report to Mayor and Cabinet for approval.

§  The proposed structure for the Regeneration and Asset Management Division would consist of four core strands or groups. These new groupings will enable staff to focus on providing a service which will deliver the right outcomes for residents and users of the borough’s built environment including the highways network & public realm.

§  The four core strands or groups would be:

o    Asset Strategy & Technical Support: this group will lead on Asset strategy/planning and liaison across the authority to align the use of and where appropriate drive value from assets. It will also act as the technical expert for the division. 

o   Commercial & Investment Delivery (incl. a Programme Office function (PMO)): this group will provide strategic and professional leadership on commercial management and investment strategies for the division. Working with colleagues in corporate finance they will drive financial and operational performance transparency into the division.

o   Capital Programme Delivery: this team will lead on the approach and delivery of capital projects for the division as a whole and, as appropriate, for other areas within the authority

o   Operational Asset Management (day to day delivery): this group will have responsibility for day to day operations across the highway and property asset base.

.

4.2      In response to questions from the Committee, the following was noted:

§  The Central Asset Register went to Mayor and Cabinet in July 2014, and is now available on SharePoint. A demonstration of the SharePoint portal will be arranged for a future Committee meeting.

§  The Council is working with the voluntary and community sector, to ensure that they are charged ‘social rental charges’, but also want the process to be transparent.

§  Officers would look at new ways to publicise how members of the public can report potential licence transgressions by utility companies in respect of road works.

§  The Asset Management Plan is due to be publicised in March 2015.

§  The Council’s Asset Rationalisation Plan aims to generate revenue, where possible, from its portfolio of property and land assets. This includes working with Goldsmiths to rationalising properties on that site.

§  There should be no significant loss in enforcement capacity with the new organisational changes.

§  The Council is looking to rationalise business rates to ensure there is an accurate level of rates in the borough; it is also looking at tax breaks where possible.

4.3      Geeta Subramaniam-Mooney (Head of Crime Reduction and Supporting People) introduced the report for proposal ‘H1: Restructuring of enforcement & regulatory services’ to the Committee. The key points to note were:

§  The noise  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

RESOLVED: That the Committee:

a)         Look at a combination of small, medium and large high streets for its Review.

b)         Focus on the following areas, in light of the Key Lines of Inquiry and the discussion at the meeting:

o   Empty shops and vacancy rates

o   The mix of residential and commercial properties

o   The variety/mix of shops on Lewisham’s high streets

o   The future of retail – and future planning in light of these changes

o   The night-time economy

o   The role of Planning

o   The potential for  improved streetscape to provide the right setting for businesses to flourish

5.1      Roger Raymond (Scrutiny Manager) introduced the report. The key points to note were:

§  The Committee would need to define what it understands as ‘High Street’, and focus on the key areas it wishes to look at; and consider whether it wants to look at the larger high street/town centre developments such as Catford and Lewisham, medium sized high streets such as Blackheath or Forest Hill, or smaller high streets such as at Honor Oak or Brockley – or a combination of the three.

§  The Committee should also discuss the Key Lines of Inquiry in the Scoping Paper, to ensure it covers all the areas Members want scrutinised, as part of the Review.

5.2      In response to questions from the Committee, the following was noted:

§  The Committee had previously conducted a Small Parades Review, which looked at what measures could be put in place to regenerate local parades.

§  There are benefits in looking at, to some degree, all categories of high street, and the major high street developments in the borough.

§  There should be a focus on scrutinising what is appropriate for High Streets in the future, with the changing modes of consumer’s shopping habits (e.g. the growth in internet shopping); and what measures are in place in Lewisham to prepare for these changes.

§  There might be some scope to talk to Trade Associations, if it is deemed helpful to the Review.

5.3       Kevin Turner, Economic Development Manager advised to the Committee on some areas that it might want to focus on as part of its Review:

·         What constitutes ‘a sustainable high street’, regardless of size, would be useful.

·         The Committee could look at whether the high streets across the borough are ‘fit for purpose’.

·         Another area that would be useful to look at is whether there is a flexible approach in respect of what Lewisham High Streets should look like.

·         The Committee could look at whether High Streets now have different roles; and whether they are becoming much more residential in their make-up than previously.

·         The Committee could scrutinise the following, for additional evidence:

o   Mary Portas Review Pilot - Sydenham, Forest Hill and Kirkdale.

o   Ladywell High Street

o   Grove Park

5.4      RESOLVED: That the Committee:

a)         Look at a combination of small, medium and large high streets for its Review.

b)         Focus on the following areas, in light of the Key Lines of Inquiry and the discussion at the meeting:

o   Empty shops and vacancy rates

o   The mix of residential and commercial properties

o   The variety/mix of shops on Lewisham’s high streets

o   The future of retail – and future planning in light of these changes

o   The night-time economy

o   The role of Planning

o   The potential for  improved streetscape to provide the right setting for businesses to flourish

6.1      Roger Raymond (Scrutiny Manager) introduced the report. The key points to note were:

• The items scheduled for the January meeting were as follows:

o   High Streets Review – Evidence session (Kevin Turner)

o   Modern Roads Review – Report (Roger Raymond)

o   Draft Waste Strategy (Sam Kirk)

o   Home Energy Conservation Report (Sarah Fletcher)

6.2      In response to questions the Committee were advised:

• Suggestions for the Committee’s work programme for 2015-16 should be sent via the Scrutiny Manager or Chair, and would be presented in a work programme report for the first meeting of 2015-16.

There were none. However a referral was made to Public Accounts Select Committee for its meeting on 5 February 2015 on the Lewisham Future Programme, in respect of N1 and N2.

            RESOLVED: That the Committee would refer to Public Accounts Select Committee Budget Savings N1 and N2:

a)    The consultation on N1 should be considered by all Local Assemblies, to increase public engagement.

b)    The results of the consultation on N1, plus any proposals derived from the consultation, must be presented to the Select Committee for consideration and scrutiny.

c)    There should be no closure of any of the borough’s parks.

7.1      There were none. However a referral was made to Public Accounts Select Committee for its meeting on 5 February 2015 on the Lewisham Future Programme, in respect of N1 and N2.

            RESOLVED: That the Committee would refer to Public Accounts Select Committee Budget Savings N1 and N2:

a)    The consultation on N1 should be considered by all Local Assemblies, to increase public engagement.

b)    The results of the consultation on N1, plus any proposals derived from the consultation, must be presented to the Select Committee for consideration and scrutiny.

c)    There should be no closure of any of the borough’s parks.

The meeting ended at 10.35pm

Chair:

            ----------------------------------------------------

Date:

            ----------------------------------------------------