Agenda item

Resolved: that the Committee would refer its views to the Public Accounts Select Committee as follows –

·         The Committee is concerned about the negative impact of this cut. As previously stated, it is apprehensive about the progressive deterioration of the cleanliness of Lewisham’s streets - as well as the perception by residents of the Council’s ability to carry out its basic functions.

·         The Committee wants to know whether a balance can be found between making cuts to the service and maintaining a reasonable quality of provision. It would welcome more detailed information about the potential for a complete reorganisation of the service - as well as the impact of making different levels of cuts on a sliding scale.

·         The Committee also wants to better understand the types (and cost) of mitigating actions that might be put in place to deal with the impact of this cut. This includes – but is not limited to – the potential for using machinery and other innovations for responsive cleansing.

·         The Committee believes that further proactive, coordinated and robust support should be provided by the Council’s communications team to make Lewisham residents aware of the reasons for making cuts. Moreover, Members believe that there should be a wider campaign by the Council to encourage civic pride in Lewisham (with the concurrent ambition of encouraging people to take pride in the cleanliness of their streets). It believes that this should incorporate support for schools to encourage and engage children and young people. This campaign could also include work to encourage take away and fast food operations to keep the areas near their shops tidy. 

·         In summary, the Committee recommends that Mayor and Cabinet should give further detailed consideration to the issues raised in this referral in advance of implementing this cut.

4.1    David Austin (Acting Chief Financial Officer) introduced the report – the following key points were noted:

·         Resources remained tight. The assumptions in the medium term financial strategy indicated that a further £12m of cuts would need to be found for the 2020-21 financial year – on top of the £8.4m of cuts that had already been agreed.

·         Cuts that had not been made in previous years rolled over – resulting in the significant requirement for this year.

·         No cuts were proposed beyond 2020-21 because of the uncertainty that remained around the financial settlement for local government. Further detail was due to be made available in December.

·         Directors had been tasked with proposing cuts for the coming year – and these had been challenged by the executive management team – followed by cabinet members with the lead member for finance and deputy mayor.

·         A percentage target had not been set for cuts. Officers avoided making incremental cuts to services (salami slicing) and thinking in ‘silos’. Consideration had also been given to the challenge facing areas that had put forward cuts in previous years that they had not yet achieved.

·         There was an overall emphasis on how services would operate in future.

4.2    David Austin and Kevin Sheehan (Executive Director for Housing, Regeneration and Environment) responded to questions from the Committee – the following key points were noted:

·         Over the past three years, more than a third of the ‘cuts’ that had been proposed were targeted at increasing income rather than reducing spending. There were fewer of these proposals in the current round of ‘cuts’ because lessons were still being learnt from the implementation of proposals in previous years.

·         Overspending in some areas was as a result of underachievement of income targets. The process was not simply about increasing fees and charges – services also needed to think about their ways of working as well as behaviours and cultures.

·         The Council was investing in commercial projects – including the regeneration of Catford – and other schemes to increase housing supply – where the Council was acquiring land and property.

·         Officers would try to highlight the key points in future budget reports. It was recognised that the report could have been clearer. This year, the report included additional information about key activity drivers of cost – which may have made it more difficult to read.

·         When the Council carried out commercial housing schemes there was often a choice between taking financial or social benefits. In current housing projects the emphasis was on providing affordable housing.

4.3    Nigel Tyrell (Director of Environment) introduced a report on the results of the street cleansing pilot and proposal CUS07 ‘reduction in street sweeping’.

·         The proposal was presented in 2017-18. It involved the reduction in sweeping some residential streets from weekly to fortnightly. Mayor and Cabinet had tasked officers with carrying out a pilot to assess the potential implications of the cut.

·         Data from reports by members of the public through ‘fix my street’ as well as the Council’s contact centre combined with geographic information had been used to assess the impact of reducing street sweeping frequencies in two areas of the borough.

·         In Brockley and Ladywell sweeping was reduced to a fortnightly service – and in an area in the south of the borough – a predominantly mobile/responsive service had been trialled.

·         It was anticipated that the responsive service would result in fewer complaints than in the area that had been reduced to a fortnightly service but this was not clearly the case.

·         Reports of complaints increased in all areas – including those that were not involved in the pilot.

·         Inspections were carried out by Council officers using the standards set out in the code of practice from the Environmental Protection Act. This used to be done routinely but this function had been removed in previous rounds of cuts.

·         Inspections indicated that quality of cleanliness of streets had declined in both areas – although less so in the area where there was responsive sweeping.

·         Implementing the cut would be challenging – but the worst effects could be mitigated with the use of responsive services.

·         The cleansing service had been independently rated as being high performance and low cost. It was used to making cuts and being innovative in response to declining resources.

4.4    Nigel Tyrell and Kevin Sheehan responded to questions from the Committee – the following key points were noted:

·         Reducing the funding available to the service would result in a decline in standards. This could result in reputational damage.

·         Complaints data had not been used to assess the impact of the trial.

·         The information that had been used was mostly from Council staff.

·         The inspections carried out by staff used a recognised standard to assess the impact of the trial.

·         There might be an option to trial the increased mechanisation of services – but to test this approach would require a complete reorganisation of the whole service and require significant upfront investment.

·         Some of the worst impacts of the pilot were mitigated by reactive and mechanical sweeping.

·         This was one of the only budgets in the environment division that it was possible to cut. There were budget pressures facing all services. The service would continue to provide as professional and comprehensive service as it could.

·         Mechanisation wasn’t a simple solution to the problems posed by this cut.

·         The quality and reliability of mechanical equipment used for the trial was varied.

4.5    In the Committee’s discussion, the following key points were also noted:

·         That the Committee would not consider proposal RES20 ‘nursery lettings’ because it felt that other select committees would be better placed to carry out scrutiny of the interrelated issues.

·         Members raised concerns about the quality of the written budget report - it was felt to be confusing and unclear. A clearer format with key points would have been welcomed.

·         Members emphasised the importance of providing affordable housing as a result of housing and land acquisitions – rather than seeking financial returns.

·         The Committee questioned the focus on complaints data to inform the street cleansing pilot – given the fluctuating level of reports.

·         Members would have welcomed further information about the lessons learnt and potential solutions from the pilot – rather than just the problems that would result from making the cut. It wasn’t clear what had been gained from carrying out the trial.

·         Committee members reemphasised the significant and sustained financial pressures facing the Council in the upcoming year – and in subsequent years. Officers were asked about the possibility of finding a balance between making cuts and retaining a sufficient quality of service. It was felt that as presented – the cut appeared to be ‘all or nothing’.

·         Members raised the importance of communicating changes to residents. Examples were given from other London Boroughs of proactive communications campaigns that were being carried out to tackle littering and illegal dumping.

·         Committee members felt unable to recommend this cut to Mayor and Cabinet given the lack of detailed options and information that was available to them.

·         The Committee wanted to better understand the alternatives to taking the cut as a whole.

·         Members discussed the importance of communications with residents about civic pride in the borough.

4.6    Resolved: that the Committee would refer its views to the Public Accounts Select Committee as follows –

·         The Committee is concerned about the negative impact of this cut. As previously stated, it is apprehensive about the progressive deterioration of the cleanliness of Lewisham’s streets - as well as the perception by residents of the Council’s ability to carry out its basic functions.

·         The Committee wants to know whether a balance can be found between making cuts to the service and maintaining a reasonable quality of provision. It would welcome more detailed information about the potential for a complete reorganisation of the service - as well as the impact of making different levels of cuts on a sliding scale.

·         The Committee also wants to better understand the types (and cost) of mitigating actions that might be put in place to deal with the impact of this cut. This includes – but is not limited to – the potential for using machinery and other innovations for responsive cleansing.

·         The Committee believes that further proactive, coordinated and robust support should be provided by the Council’s communications team to make Lewisham residents aware of the reasons for making cuts. Moreover, Members believe that there should be a wider campaign by the Council to encourage civic pride in Lewisham (with the concurrent ambition of encouraging people to take pride in the cleanliness of their streets). It believes that this should incorporate support for schools to encourage and engage children and young people. This campaign could also include work to encourage take away and fast food operations to keep the areas near their shops tidy. 

·         In summary, the Committee recommends that Mayor and Cabinet should give further detailed consideration to the issues raised in this referral in advance of implementing this cut.