Agenda item

4.1    Liz Dart (Head of Culture and Community Development) introduced the report; the following key points were noted:

·         The report was still in draft and officers intended that it would be sent out with a ‘draft’ watermark.

·         The report would be changed before consideration at Mayor and Cabinet to include a recommendation for further consultation to take place.

·         There would be more consultation with organisations over the summer, which would follow from the previous discussions about the framework.

·         The intention was to ask the Mayor and Cabinet for ratification of proposals following the consultation over the summer.

·         The plan covered a period of three years; there would be further consultation throughout.

·         The negotiation of leases would be on-going.

·         Plans were for two community hubs in the borough, one at the Mulberry Centre and the other at the Leemore.

·         Work would also be carried out with Phoenix Housing to build on the offer provided at the Green Man and in the developing plans for the Fellowship Inn.

·         Organisations were being asked to be pragmatic about their use of space. There were lots of opportunities to bring partners together to work better.

·         Community centres would provide neighbourhood services focused on a smaller network of centres.

·         Of the current establishment of 23 buildings seven would be retained; six would be offered to registered social landlord partners; two would be reallocated as nurseries and seven were proposed for closure.

·         It was proposed to either keep community space on the site of the Goldsmiths Community Centre either in the current building or as part of a redevelopment with housing subject to further surveys, consultation and options appraisal.

·         Facilities being offered at full market rates would be likely to stay in that category. Organisations which did not wish to remain in commercially rented spaces could opt to relocate to the community hubs.

·         There would continue to be engagement with partners in the community and voluntary sector, as well as joint working with premises management organisations and colleagues in strategic housing to look at the most efficient use of assets.

·         Any organisation facing significant change would be given at least three months’ notice of the proposed change.

·         A change was also proposed to the community asset transfer framework to enable the Council to use community asset transfer, where it was appropriate.

·         This would mean that priority uses and services would be safeguarded and that viability, sustainability and value for money would have to be clearly demonstrated.

·         The equalities analysis assessment of the proposals highlighted the impact on older and younger users. It also indicated that as the hub model of working developed it would mitigate the impact through the re-provision of services.

4.2    Liz Dart (Head of Culture and Community Development) responded to questions from the Committee; the following key points were noted:

·         A mapping exercise had been carried out; the results of which were in the appendix to the report. This exercise indicated the locations of all the other facilities in the borough and enabled a consideration of the impact of the changes to accommodation of the community and voluntary sector to be assessed.

·         A fundamental review of advice giving services was being carried out as part of the main grants programme funding.

·         As part of the review, an assessment of the locations of advice giving services would take place.

·         Following the consultation over the summer, the options for each organisation would be reconsidered, based on the current usage – and balanced with existing resources.

·         Officers would be asking organisations about how they might use space differently.

·         One of the drivers for the work was the lack of funding available in the Council’s corporate asset services to maintain all of the buildings in the community services portfolio to a high standard.

·         Officers would provide an analysis of the loss of space in terms of overall floor area, as well as the change in functions operating from each building.

·         The moves being proposed were pragmatic. If there was no need to make savings to the budget, the Council would keep all of its centres open. It was the case that difficult choices had to be made.

·         If it was possible to ask developers to build community spaces as part of new developments then this would be considered. As always, however, the cost of maintenance and upkeep for spaces in new builds might be prohibitive for many community and voluntary sector organisations.

·         The Council was working with Voluntary Action Lewisham to develop a closure policy for organisations facing the loss of their space. Lessons had been learnt from the closure of Parker House.

·         Spaces that were re-designated as nurseries would be marketed as such and arrangements would be made with organisations wishing to take up leases in those spaces to pay proportionate rents (this was dependent on whether they were a profit making business or a charity).

·         Officers would be challenging organisations to demonstrate their requirements for space and all groups would be asked to work more closely together.

4.3    Members of the following organisations addressed the Committee:

·         Honor Oak Community Centre Association

·         Lewisham Pensioners Forum

·         Brandram Road Community Centre

·         Milton Court Tenant and Residents Association

4.4    The following key concerns were noted:

·         The impact of the proposed changes on the physical proximity of services to other organisations or services in the borough.

·         The lack of detailed and organisation specific consultation to date.

·         The confusion caused by the previous generic consultation and the submission of plans to Mayor and Cabinet without information being provided to affected organisations.

·         The inaccessibility of some of the new proposed spaces for specified groups of people.

·         The importance of community facilities to community wellbeing and cohesion.

·         The belief that the Council was unaware of the extent of the activities taking place in community centres.

·         The negative equalities impact of the proposals (particularly on older people and BME communities).

4.5    Councillor Joan Millbank (Cabinet Member for the Third Sector and Community) addressed the Committee; the following key points were noted:

·         It was recognised that the proposals were controversial but all groups had the opportunity to make their views known as part of the review of the policy.

·         The community hub concept was broadly well received in the sector.

·         The community and voluntary sector was looking to save money and operate more efficiently, as was the case in the public sector.

·         Co-location of services would provide the opportunity for groups to network and to share facilities.

·         The Council was mindful that some community spaces were under used or only used by small sections of the community.

·         The Council wanted to work with organisations to develop a fuller understanding of the resources that were available in the community already.

·         The Council also wanted to look forward to consider what work could be done to meet emerging needs.

·         The Council was keen to reduce the number of sports halls and large spaces in the portfolio and replace them with adaptable spaces.

·         It was recognised that there were concerns about moves and closures, but there was also a bigger picture.

Members also discussed the proposals and highlighted the following key points:

·         Their concerns about the contentious nature of the work being undertaken and the importance of consultation.

·         The potential negative equalities impact on people of different ages and members of the black and minority ethnic community.

·         The possibility of changing planning policy to create community spaces in new developments.

Resolved: to note the draft report being presented to Mayor and Cabinet – and to add the report on the outcome of the consultation with the Community and Voluntary Sector to the Committee’s work plan in advance of its consideration at Mayor and Cabinet.