Agenda item

Resolved – to refer the Committee’s views to the Public Accounts Select Committee.

Mark Humphreys (Group Finance Manager, Customer Services) introduced the savings report. The key points to note were:

• In the Autumn (when scrutiny committees considered the first round savings proposals) officers set out a range of possible funding scenarios. It was anticipated that the Council would be required to make a £30m-£50m saving over the 2013-15 period.
• The subsequent financial settlement from Government represented the worst case scenario. The Council would be required to save £53.5m over this period. Meaning £21.3m needed to be saved in 2013/14 and £32.2m in 14/15.
• Previously, savings of £4.6m had been identified for 13/14. In the Autumn savings proposals £27.5m of savings were identified for 13-15, including £13m of savings for 14/15.
• The report being put before members identified further savings of £2.8m for 13/14 and £5.6m of savings for 14/15. This meant that whilst the budget would be balanced in 13/14 there remained a gap of £13m in 14/15.
• The financial situation facing the Council remained extremely challenging.

Customer services savings proposals

CUS40 (A move from weekly to fortnightly recycling)

Nigel Tyrell (Head of Environment) introduced the saving, the key points to note were:

• The implementation of the proposal would lead to the loss of 20 staff members and reduce the number of refuse vehicles used by the service.
• There were some significant risks to the achievability of the saving.
• The exact level of saving could not accurately be predicted but the changes would result in a saving of approximately £0.5m.
• Concerns about waste volumes had been taken into account. Consideration might need to be given to how larger volumes of recycling would be stored in residents’ homes, the availability of street bulk facilities, and potential increases in fly-tipping.

CUS41 (Review of the regulatory services across strategic housing and environment divisions)

Kevin Sheehan (Executive Director for Customer Services) introduced the savings proposal. The key points to note were:

• Frontline enforcement would be protected.
• The number of managers in relation to the numbers of staff across all areas of regulation and enforcement was being reviewed.
• The proposal would reduce the number of managers.

In response to questions from the Committee Kevin Sheehan advised:

• Enforcement capacity would be maintained.
• A consultation with staff would need to take place before any changes could be implemented.

Planning and economic development savings proposals

John Miller (Head of Planning) introduced the proposals. The key point to note was:

• Planning and economic development had made significant savings in previous years. The proposal put forward in the first round – for the implementation of locally set planning fees was being delayed by central government but it was still anticipated that these measures would be put in place.

RNR33 (Reduction in economic development delivery budget)

John Miller introduced the saving proposal. The key points to note were:

• The Economic Development team had been completely restructured during the previous round of savings.
• The restructure resulted in a number of redundancies and left a small strategic development team.
• The saving would reduce the team’s delivery budget and reduce administrative capacity.

RNR34 (Reduction in planning policy functions)

• It was proposed to cease, or reduce capacity for, a number of tasks in planning policy. The saving would result in the reduction of one post.

In response to questions from the Committee, John Miller advised that he recognised the Committee’s concerns about the loss of capacity for planning tasks, including neighbourhood planning. He advised that planning policy work would need to be handled by the smaller team.

RNR35 (Changes to consultation and planning notices)

John Miller introduced the saving the key points to note were:

• Officers proposed to cease written notification of planning applications to neighbours of proposed developments. It was also being proposed to stop amenity panel meetings and local meetings. The proposals would result in a saving through staffing reduction.
• Other London Boroughs had moved to a system of using site notices to make communities aware of planning applications.

In response to questions from the Committee, John Miller advised:

• The approach had worked in other London Boroughs. However, further work needed to be carried out to ensure that best practice could be replicated in Lewisham.

Nigel Tyrell provided information about the comparative cost of bereavement services, as requested by the Committee at its previous budgets savings meeting.

The Committee resolved to advise the Public Accounts Select Committee of the following:

RNR34 (Reduction in planning policy functions)

• The Committee accepts that the changes being proposed will have an impact on the delivery of planning policy functions. However, the Committee believes that support for neighbourhood planning should be maintained.

RNR35 (Changes to consultation and planning notices)

• The Committee is concerned about the potential impact of this proposal. It recommends that officers be asked to explore alternative options for communicating with communities that are affected by new developments. The Committee also believes that further consideration needs to be given to the delivery of consultations relating to large planning applications.

Resolved: to refer the Committee’s views to the Public Accounts Select Committee.