Agenda and minutes

RESOLVED: that the minutes of the meeting held on 16 September be agreed as an accurate record.

2.1    The following non-prejudicial interests were declared:

·      Councillor Alan Hall: Council appointee on the board of Phoenix Community Housing Association.

·      Councillor Colin Elliot: Council appointee on the board of the Lewisham Disability Coalition.  

2.2    Councillor James-J Walsh declared a non-prejudicial interest in agenda item 5 as he re-established the Lewisham LGBT forum.

3.1     Liz Dart (Head of Culture and Community Development) introduced the report. The following key points were noted:

·      In April 2015 Mayor and Cabinet considered a new framework for the Council’s use of buildings to support the community sector following a three-month consultation with the voluntary and community sector. Four categories of buildings were identified. One of the categories was Community Centres.

·      An implementation plan was developed and taken to Mayor and Cabinet in July 2015. The implementation plan contained proposals to close or redevelop some of the community centres. A further consultation has taken place on these proposals. The responses to that consultation and the outcomes of the consultation are in this report.

·      The Council has to balance the need for community space with its requirement to provide sufficient school places and the need for a response to the current housing crisis. The average house price in Lewisham is 12 times the median income, and there are currently about 550 families in temporary accommodation. The Council also has to ensure it provides value for money.

·      The consultation response from the Brandram Road Community Centre is not included in full in the report because it included financial information that the Council wouldn’t normally release in the public domain. Officers are taking legal advice on how best to include the consultation response in the report going to Mayor and Cabinet in November.

·      The feedback received during the consultation has resulted in some proposals being changed. The timescales for some developments have been altered, for example for the Honor Oak Community Centre. For some community centres it has been identified that there is insufficient alternative accommodation in the vicinity.

3.2     A representative of the Honor Oak Community Centre addressed the Committee. The following key points were noted:

·      The Community Centre was opened in 1981 with the aim to minimise disadvantage in the local communities.

·      The centre is used by 15 community groups, and is used throughout the day and evening. There is a separate youth centre next door that provides activities for young people.

·      Research conducted by the community centre indicated that the local community wants to be able to use a community space for birthdays, weddings and christenings.

·      More consideration could be given to the equality implications and the issue of quality of life.

·      There was a public meeting held to discuss the community’s concerns around crime. Concerns were raised that bringing more people into the community would make things harder.

3.3     Liz Dart raised the following points:

·      Detailed design on any proposals to build new housing has not been done yet. There is currently only a sketch outline that indicates this housing could be affordable and feasible to consider. Any issues about the actual design would be addressed and raised at the next stage of the proposals developing.

·      Detailed proposals will be deferred until a comprehensive view can be taken of how to incorporate new housing, community facilities and space for youth facilities. The new date suggested for the redevelopment  ...  view the full minutes text for item 3.

4.1     Paul Aladenika (Service Group Manager, Policy Development and Analytical Insight) introduced the report. The following key points were noted:

·         On 30 September 2015 the Department for Communities and Local Government released the Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD) for England. The indices measures relative deprivation at lower layer super output area (LSOA) level, across nearly 33,000 local authority areas (169 LSOAs for Lewisham).

·         The Indices comprises seven weighted domains for which data has been drawn from 37 indicators. The data supporting the indicators has been drawn primarily from 2012.

·         The results reveal that in 2015 Lewisham ranks 48^th (1^st being most deprived) out of 326 local authorities for relative deprivation. This is up from 31^st in 2010 and 39^th in 2007. Compared to other London boroughs, in 2015 Lewisham ranks tenth. This is unchanged from 2010 in terms of relative position in London.

·         By way of headline analysis, New Cross and Downham are amongst the most deprived wards in the country with 90% of their LSOAs in the 20% most deprived nationally. Bellingham, Rushey Green, Whitefoot and Evelyn are the only other wards with 50% or more of their LSOAs in the 20% most deprived nationally

·         In terms of relative change, New Cross with 90% of its LSOAs in the 20% most deprived nationally compared to 50% in 2010, shows the most significant deterioration. Evelyn has shown the greatest improvement in relative terms with 50% of its LSOAs in the 20% most deprived nationally in 2015, compared to 90% in 2010.

4.2     Paul Aladenika and Aileen Buckton responded to questions from the Committee. The following key points were noted:

·           This data could be very useful for the voluntary sector when applying for grants and funding. The analysis of the data would be presented at the Stronger Communities Partnership Board. The data would also be used in workshops to assist smaller communities groups in putting bids together.

·           Much of the data was surprising. The data in the IMD is from 2012, so one has to be really mindful of the socio-economic issues at that time when interpreting the data. For example, the unemployment rate in 2012 was 10% compared to 6.3% in 2015. Average house prices in Lewisham have gone up from £278k to over £400k in that period.

·           There is a concentration of deprivation in the north and south of the borough, with less deprivation in the east of the borough.

·           There are indications that the changes in New Cross are mainly in the areas of health and unemployment, but this needs to be further analysed.

4.3     The Committee expressed an interest in further information on data from the IMD on award level, how the data from the IMD related to groups with protected characteristics, the education levels of residents and information specific to people starting families.

4.4     RESOLVED: that the Committee note the report.

4.5     Standing orders were suspended at 20.55 to enable the completion of Committee business. 

5.1     Timothy Andrew (Principal Policy Officer) introduced the report to the Committee. The following key points were noted:

·      The 2010 Equality Act amalgamated different legislation around equalities. The Act introduced more protected characteristics. It introduced the obligation for public bodies to have due regard in their work for the impact on groups with protected characteristics.

·      The Council developed five enduring objectives in response to the introduction of the Equality Act, listed in paragraph 4.4 of the report.

·      The Council’s current Comprehensive Equalities Scheme (CES) finished in March 2016. The data presented to the Committee demonstrates the work in developing the Comprehensive Equalities Scheme for 2016-2020.

·      One important thing to note was that the monitoring of data on ethnicity is generally done in big chunks, so there is a richness of diversity within communities as well that isn’t necessarily captured.

·      People’s lived experiences are diverse and not bound to the categories of protected characteristics. People’s lived experiences can vary to a significant degree depending on which parts of the borough they live in, whether or not they are disabled, their socio-economic status, their faith or belief, their gender identity and their sexual orientation.

·      The Council needs to consider how the provision of supportive services might change the environment for people in protected groups.

·      The priorities for improving health outcomes in the borough are set out in the Health and Wellbeing Board priorities. The Children and Young People Plan sets out the priorities for children and young people in the borough, and the plan for 2015-18 was going through scrutiny and to Mayor and Cabinet. The Work and Skills strategy outlines the Council approach to increasing education levels and employment rates in the borough. The key objectives for the Council in this area are laid out in the Housing Strategy 2015-2020.

·      In the area of housing there had been significant changes in demand. When instances of hate crime and domestic violence increase, there is the question of whether this happens because people feel more comfortable reporting these crimes or whether more of the crimes have happened.

5.2     Timothy Andrew, Paul Aladenika and Aileen Buckton answered questions from the Committee. The following key points were noted:

·      There was a suggestion in the last parliament to include socio-economic class as a protected characteristic but this was rejected by the last government.

·      Data on deprivation, socio-economic class and employment wasn’t included in the Comprehensive Equalities Scheme for 2010-2016.

·      The CES links to other strategies of the Council that are used as the delivery models to improve equalities across Lewisham. All areas of the Council have access to the detailed data underpinning the development of the CES.

·      Deprivation, socio-economic class and employment data were not included in the CES in 2010.

5.3     The Committee commented that:

·      It seemed that the borough was becoming more split in terms of equality. Some areas seem to do well while others are doing less well. One question was how to counteract or avoid that.

·      Socio-economic class can have a big  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

6.1     Simone van Elk introduced the report

6.2     The Committee discussed the work programme, and decided that:

·      the item on Local Assemblies scheduled for 30 November would be removed from the agenda and information would be received via email instead

·      the item on Library Consultation 2015 Update should be added to the agenda for 30 November

·      the item on Library and Information Service scheduled for 19 January would be removed from the agenda and information would be received via email instead

·      The item on Supporting the voluntary sector in acquiring external funding scheduled for 19 January would be removed from the agenda and information would be received via email instead

·      The item on Leisure Centre Contracts would be added to the agenda on 9 March

·      The item on VAWG service update would be removed from the agenda on 9 March, and it would be suggested to next year’s Committee that this item would be taken at the first meeting of the next municipal year.

6.3     The Committee also discussed the item on the Main Grants Programme 2015-18 Equalities Update. Petra Der Man (Principal Lawyer) and Aileen Buckton advised the Committee on which aspects of this item they could consider under the Committee’s terms of reference. 

6.4     RESOLVED: to agree the changes to the Committee’s work programme as listed in 6.2, and that the Executive Director of Community Services and Principal Lawyer would advise the Committee on the content of the item on Main Grants Programme 2015-18 Equalities Update.   

7.1     A referral was made under agenda item 3 (Voluntary Sector Accommodation Consultation Update).

</AI7>

<TRAILER_SECTION>

The meeting ended at 9.55 pm