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 after the following addition:

4.7 (d) Local Assemblies should take the lead in coordinating action in these areas.

1.1       RESOLVED: That:

The minutes of the meeting held on 11 November 2014 be signed as an accurate record of the meeting after the following addition:

4.7 (d) Local Assemblies should take the lead in coordinating action in these areas.

2.1       There were no declarations of interest.

RESOLVED: That the Committee:

a)    Note the evidence presented.

b)    Consider the evidence as part of the High Streets Review.

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

§  The Council’s planning policies are contained in the Council’s local plan. The local plan is currently made up of a number of documents, which include the Core Strategy (2011), the Development Management Local Plan (2014) and the Lewisham Town Centre Local Plan (2014).

§  The local plan policies aim to sustain the viability and vitality of town centres. Retail, commercial, and community uses within the Borough’s high streets are protected through the adopted policies. The strongest level of protection is given to retail uses within the Borough’s primary shopping frontages.

§  Planning policies can shape the success of town centres. Existing planning policies protect retail, commercial and community uses in town centres, promote residential uses where appropriate, and promote the night time economy where appropriate. However, there are limitations to the influence that planning can have due to the way in which planning regulations have been written. For example:

o   The Planning Service is unable to control the occupants of premises where there is no change of use. Therefore a change from one type of retailer within the A1 use class to another type of retailer within the A1 use class cannot be controlled. For example, the Planning Service could not control the change of a unit from a supermarket to a discount retailer. Nor could the Council control the change of a unit from a bank to a betting shop.

o   The Planning Service is unable to make a planning decision based on prejudices against a particular end user. For example, an application for a convenience shop operated by a major supermarket chain could not be refused on the basis that an independent operator would be preferred by the local community.

§  In relation to current high street trends and observations a number of points were made:

o   In relation to vacancy rates, the majority of centres within the Borough are faring well compared with the national and regional statistics. The national mean vacancy rate is currently estimated to be 11.8%, with the London vacancy rate estimated at 7.8%. The mean vacancy rate for the Borough’s two major town centres and the seven district centres compares favourably, being 7.3% in 2014.

o   Each town and district centre, with the exception of New Cross/New Cross Gate, is allocated a primary shopping frontage. The primary shopping frontage is considered to be the retail core of the centre, and therefore A1 (retail) uses are given especially strong protection within this frontage. The Local Plan sets a target of 70% of units within the primary shopping frontage in each centre to be in A1 use. Many of the centres either meet or come close to the target. However the figures for some centres are significantly below the target. These figures demonstrate that retail may not be the dominant focus of some centres, and that these centres may have other strengths and niches.

§  Lewisham  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

RESOLVED: That the Committee note the report.

4.1      Sarah Fletcher (Sustainability & Climate Change Policy Lead) introduced the report to the Committee. The key points to note were:

§  The Home Energy Conservation Act (HECA) requires the publication of a publically-available report on the council’s plans to achieve improved energy efficiency, and for the council to report on progress in implementing the proposed measures every two years.

§  In December 2013 Lewisham Council established an OJEU compliant Energy Efficiency Installations Framework with a delivery partner.  The Framework is set up to cover a wide range of energy efficiency measures in domestic and non-domestic properties and covers the London Boroughs of Lewisham, Bexley, Bromley, Greenwich and Southwark – enabling Councils and any Registered Providers with housing stock in those boroughs to access the Framework. 

§  The Council is working with Bexley and Bromley Councils through the Department of Energy & Climate Change (DECC) Green Deal Communities Fund to deliver the Green Deal Communities Fund project, which is taking an area based approach to increasing the energy efficiency of existing housing alongside a focus on improving energy efficiency standards in the privately rented sector.

§  A number of projects were outlined, for example, the work carried out via engagement with the health sector through the Warm Homes, Healthy People scheme. It has been successful in supporting 937 residents in the last 3 years and has helped reduce pressure on other parts of the public sector as a result.

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

§  Lewisham’s sustainable energy projects and initiatives are to help enable the Government to achieve its carbon emissions target of a reduction of 35% by 2020. With regard to new build, Lewisham’s Core Strategy is in conformity with the London Plan, and follows their carbon reductions target. However, changes to the Energy Company Obligation (ECO) have meant there is less funding available to progress domestic energy efficiency retrofits.

§  Officers will populate the Home Conservation Report with the current projects that they, with partners, are undertaking to meet the requirements under the Act.

§  Feedback from customers shows that even though the “knock-on-the-door” method is not always a popular way to engage with customers in relation to home conservation schemes. However, feedback has also found that it is also one of most effective methods to get the message out to customers. Lewisham uses this method of engagement alongside a range of other methods to engage with customers, such as events, use of multi-media communication routes, letters to residents, articles in council and local press.  Where a ‘no cold-calling’ notice is displayed on a property this is always abided by and the information provided and processes are agreed with Trading Standards in advance.

§  Officers recognise there have been some problems in how developers have installed, commissioned and managed communal heating systems in some buildings in the borough.  However the review by the Sustainable Development Select Committee has also identified ways in developers have been able to address or ‘design out’ the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

RESOLVED: That the Committee note the report.

5.1      Sam Kirk (Strategic Waste & Environment Manager) introduced the report to the Committee. The key points to note were:

§  At the Committee meeting in October 2014, four options were proposed:

o   Option 1 (Baseline plus garden waste): Refuse collected weekly, recycling collected co-mingled weekly and garden waste fortnightly;

o   Option 2: Refuse collected fortnightly, recycling collected twin stream (i.e. paper separately from the rest of the recycling) fortnightly and garden & food waste collected weekly;

o   Option 3: Refuse collected weekly, recycling collected twin-stream fortnightly and garden waste fortnightly;

o   Option 4: Refuse collected fortnightly, recycling collected twin stream fortnightly, garden waste collected fortnightly and food waste collected weekly.

§  Since the Waste Strategy last came to the Committee, a 5th option has been   proposed. This fifth option is the same as Option 4 except that instead of recycling collected twin stream (i.e. paper taken out), recycling remains as a co-mingled service:

o    Option 5: Refuse collected fortnightly, recycling collected co-mingled fortnightly, garden waste collected fortnightly and food waste collected weekly.

§  There may well be other changes to the Strategy going forward, in relation to how these options affect kerbside properties, properties within blocks, and houses being divided into houses of multiple occupation.

§  Officers are currently conducting a number of tests to ensure that the various options are compliant with the Waste Regulations.

§  Officers are also talking to other local authorities to identify any lessons learnt in relation to the various options.

§  The Committee also heard about the economic practicability of the options; for example:

o   the price of oil affecting both transport costs of shipping materials around the world and upon the commodity price of the material (e.g. plastic) against using virgin material.

o   despite contracts being in place, some local authorities are seeing paper mills turn away paper that is not of a high enough quality or has got wet after being stored in boxes for a week due to wet weather.

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

§  The purpose of the consultation is to engage with residents on the various approaches to managing waste in Lewisham.  As well as asking for people’s opinions, the consultation will also provide an opportunity to educate and inform the public. The precise elements of the consultation have yet to be agreed, but should involve public events and focus groups as well as the use of the online surveys and going directly to residents to garner their views.

§  The proposed charge for the annual subscription based garden waste service is £60 a year, and this would generate an income of approx. £787,000 if a 25% take up from garden properties was achieved.  Lewisham currently has about 4,000 unique users for its current request for garden waste service and by introducing a subscription based service it is hoped a more efficient and reliable service will be provided to householders.

§  Officers will investigate whether there are any local authorities that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

6.1       The Chair reported that the report would be deferred to allow more time to invite additional witnesses that could provide a more ‘visionary’ view of modern roads, one that could provide a vision of what a modern road should look like in the future, in a multi-user environment.

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

• The Committee has now concluded its work programme for 2014-15.
• Some items that the Committee have indicated it wants to consider in 2015-16 are:
  • Flood Risk Management strategy: consultation results
  • Lewisham Central Opportunity site
  • Heritage and Tourism
  • Borough-wide 20mph zone implementation
  • Bakerloo Line extension proposals: update
  • Neighbourhood Planning
  • Catford Regeneration Programme

7.2       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.
• The Scrutiny Manager would also liaise with officers in relation to items for the 2015-16 work programme.
• The provisional date for the next meeting is Thursday 16 April 2015.

8.1       None.