Agenda, decisions and minutes

Resolved: that the minutes of the meeting held on 22 October 2013 be agreed as a true record.

Resolved: that the minutes of the meeting held on 22 October 2013 be agreed as a true record.

Councillor Mallory declared a non-prejudicial interest in relation to item five due to his involvement in Lee Fair Share.

Councillor Morrison declared a non-prejudicial interest in relation to item five due to her involvement in the Ackroyd Community Centre.

Resolved: to note the response from Mayor and Cabinet.

This item was considered after item six.

3.1      Geeta Subramaniam-Mooney introduced the response from Mayor and Cabinet, noting the following key points:

• Both the Mayor and officers shared the concerns raised by the Committee in its referral.
• It was felt that the changes to the probation service were being rushed through, without proper consideration of the potential impact or the risks involved.
• Officers were using every opportunity to raise their concerns about: the new structure of the probation service; the proposed payment mechanisms: the lack of detail available about the management of offenders.
• Meetings had been held with the Ministry of Justice to try to ascertain how risks would be managed in the new structure.
• The probation service had been restructured – and probation colleagues had been assigned to their new roles based on their case loads, rather than through an interview process.
• More information should be available in six weeks, when Council officers would be attending an event about plans for the operation of the new service.
• The new service was due to become operational in October.
• The Ministry of Justice was based in London, which meant it was easier for London authorities to engage with decision makers and raise their concerns.
• Sara Robinson had been appointed as Deputy Director – London for the New National Probation service – which should be positive for Lewisham – because she was a former Assistant Chief Officer in Lewisham and understood Lewisham specific issues.
• The plans that had been made available to date did not clearly demonstrate what the responsibilities of local authorities would be.
• Officers were working to ascertain what role the Council would be required to take in the new structure.
• Officers would also be working to ensure that Lewisham service providers were positioned to sub-contract from the prime provider when this opportunity became available.

Resolved: to note the response from Mayor and Cabinet.

The Committee did not consider this item.

Resolved: to note the report.

This item was considered after item 2.

5.1      Liz Dart (Head of Culture and Community Development) introduced the report, noting the following key points:

• Mayor and Cabinet (Contracts) had agreed to extend the main grants programme for a further year (2014-15) at its meeting on 4 December.
• Mayor and Cabinet had approved the detail of the grant funding allocation, including the funding of rent grants for four organisations.

• A number of organisations had submitted bids to grow their services – which the Council was unable to fund from the resources available.
• Grants for 2013-14 had been adjusted to mirror the salary increase agreed for local government.
• Organisations were able to appeal the grant funding decision – no organisation had chosen to do so.

5.2      In response to questions from the Committee the following key points were noted:

• Overview and Scrutiny Business Panel had requested that officers provide analysis of the main grants programme setting out the geographical spread of provision and the types of provision on offer.
• This would include information about organisations that worked to build links between communities and enhance community cohesion.

Resolved: to note the report.

Resolved: to note the report and to receive a further update on Community Connections.

This item was considered after item two.

6.1      Winston Castello (Local Assemblies Team Manager) introduced the report and presentation, noting the following key points:

• This was the fifth full year of the assemblies programme.
• Information had been collected about the demographics of attendees as well as the priorities and achievements of the assemblies programme.
• Assemblies had similar priorities but different ways of operating.
• The programme demonstrated that small initiatives involving many people could have a positive impact.
• The Council was reviewing the delivery of its services in the context of reductions to its budget; therefore a number of questions were pertinent to the future direction of the assemblies programme:
  • How the Local Assemblies could best foster community action.
  • How Local Assemblies could jointly develop areas of work which were of mutual interest.
  • How Local Assemblies could continue to engage with communities outside of meetings and maintain a strong and pro-active profile in challenging fiscal times.

6.2      Liz Dart (Head of Culture and Community Development) advised the Committee about recent developments; the following key points were noted:

• Figures in the annual report demonstrated a year on year rise in the number of people attending assemblies; however the most recent figures indicated there had been a drop in people attending meetings.
• Officers continued to work on identifying best practice, working out which things that could be passed between wards and those that worked solely on a ward by ward basis.
• Both she and the Executive Director for Community Services had been visiting assembly coordinating group meetings.
• So far they had visited nine out of the 18 coordinating groups.
• Key points noted by officers as a result of these meetings were:
  • Concerns from residents about the responsiveness of some Council services.
  • Uncertainty on the part of co-ordinating groups about the use of devolved budgets.
  • The need to engage with community development teams from registered social landlords.
  • The interaction between assemblies and Safer Neighbourhood Panels (it was recognised that some panels were working well and some were ‘tired’).
  • The importance of achieving a balance between assembly focus on physical infrastructure and services as opposed to well-being and health.

6.3      Liz Dart (Head of Culture and Community Development) also provided an update about a new project created through the investment fund; the following key points were noted:

• Using the investment fund – the Council had set up the ‘Community Connections’ project – which would be working with community groups and individuals to enhance wellbeing.
• Four ‘community development workers’ would be working with organisations to identify gaps in service provision and develop ways organisations could refer to the project.
• Three ‘community support facilitators’ would be working with individuals to ensure the people remained connected with their communities.
• The project was split across four areas in Lewisham and linked to time banks in each area.
• Facilitators might help when people were discharged from hospital. They might also assist in setting up projects to create links between communities.
• The project would also engage with assemblies to ensure that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

Resolved: to add an additional item to the work programme on the Community Connections project; to receive information about the Council’s consultation on the violence against women and girls strategy.

Members discussed the work programme report and-

Resolved: to add an additional item to the work programme on the Community Connections project - and to receive information about work to reduce violence against women and girls.

None

None