Agenda item

Decisions made by Mayor and Cabinet on 3 September 2014

Meeting of Overview and Scrutiny Business Panel, Tuesday, 16th September, 2014 7.05 pm (Item 15.)

Minutes:

DECISIONS MADE BY MAYOR AND CABINET ON 3 SEPTEMBER 2014

New Homes, Better Places Phase 2 Update

The Programme Manager, Housing Matters introduced the report. Councillor Dacres commented that she was pleased to note that officers had been quite diligent in their communication with local residents. She asked why there was not sufficient information about Blackheath and was told that phase one of the project would only be concentrating on 4 sites, and Blackheath would form part of phase 2 of the project.

Councillor John Paschoud said officers should ensure that any decision made should be reported to the appropriate Select Committee so that the proper scrutiny process was followed. Councillor Handley stated that he had discussions with the relevant officers and any further issues would be reported to the Housing Select Committee.

RESOLVED that the decision of the Mayor be noted.

Council Tax Reduction Scheme: review of 2013/14 scheme and proposals for 2015/16

The Head of Public Services introduced the report. Councillor Mallory asked whether the savings made from the hardship allowance, and the additional money collected for Council tax had offset the cost of bailiffs and collection of council tax debts. It was noted that cost was charged for recovery action. Referring to paragraph 8 of the report Councillor Muldoon asked how long it took to write off debt. The Head of Public Services said that as soon as someone meets the criteria their debt would be written off, but generally debts were not written off.

Councillor Muldoon asked if officers had considered a no interest loan scheme and was told although this was not currently available, officers worked closely with Lewisham Credit Union, and would investigate the possibility of a no interest loan scheme.

Councillor John Paschoud stated that officers should be commended for the sensitive way they had handled most of the cases, and asked whether the software issues had been resolved, and was told progress was being made. Councillor Milne asked why the take up was so low, and whether it was the same for other London Boroughs. It was noted that the figures were comparable.

Councillor Mallory asked what the criteria for the hardship allowance were. He was told it was for someone who is disabled, or looking after a disabled child below the age of 5. Also over 50 and unemployed could qualify. Panel Members noted that officers relied on front line staff to communicate this information, which is also available on the website.

The Chair said that although the collection rate was higher than anticipated it was still lower than in previous years, and Business Panel would continue to scrutinise the scheme.

RESOLVED that the decision of the Mayor be noted.

Development Management Local Plan

The Planning Policy Manager introduced the report. Councillor Dacres asked how this plan relates to the local neighbourhood plan, and was told that within the plan hierarchy the local neighbourhood plan is at the bottom forming part of the council’s development plan, which is part of the Mayor of London plan, which in turn must be in accordance with national planning policies. The Chair thanked the Planning Policy Manager for the report.

RESOLVED that the decision of the Mayor be noted.

Local Implementation Plan – Annual Spending Submission 2015/16 and Delivery Plan

The Policy and Development Manager introduced the report. Councillor Morrison said she was not aware that £140k was the allowance for Brockley Corridor as reported in the local blog, and asked what it had been spent on. She was informed this would be investigated and a response sent to her.

Councillor Morrison asked whether the LIP funding would be combined with the Mayor’s Air Quality funding and was told this would be the case, as it was a practical way forward because a lot of air quality issues originate from transportation. Councillor Morrison also asked whether Grove Park Neighbourhood was a plan or just an area. Confirmation was given this was an area.

Councillor Mallory asked whether traffic congestion in the Grove Park area would also be addressed. It was noted that the Grove Park Scheme Street Scope should improve the environment, including traffic issues in Baring Road. Panel members commented that some of the corridors listed included more than 1 ward and not all Ward Councillors were being updated about progress. It was noted that this information would be useful for Ward Assembly meetings. The Policy and Development Manager apologised for the communication issues that had been raised and stated that he was aware that officers attended some Ward Assembly meetings, and he was under the impression that Members were being kept in the loop. It was also noted that information was also available in the local libraries.

The Chair said that officers have to ensure that all stakeholders were kept informed in a timely manner, especially Ward Members

RESOLVED that the decision of the Mayor be noted.

LGA Municipal Bonds Agency

The Head of Corporate Resources introduced the report. Councillor Dacres asked what steps the Council had taken to mitigate against losses. Panel members noted that a very good business case would be made, together with wide publicity.

The Head of Corporate Resources said that once Lewisham commits to its mobilisation and related governance, then the Council could risk losing £25k in the initial stage, and up to £200k. It was noted that similar international schemes in Sweden and New Zealand had done well, also large national institutions i.e. Cambridge University and TFL operating bond schemes were doing well. Councillor Dacres asked what would attract external bodies to invest in these bonds, and was told it would be a low risk investment that would have a good yield.

Councillor Mallory asked how many local authorities would be needed to make it a viable venture. The Head of Corporate Resources said that in July there were 22 authorities that had made a statement of intent, and 40 authorities were needed. By the end of September it would be known whether the scheme would go ahead.

Councillor Muldoon stated that there was a history of local authorities, bonds and mortgage lending, and asked whether assurance had been given that experts in finance would be on board. The Head of Corporate Resources said that getting people on board with the right expertise was very important, as it would be one way of limiting the risk. Councillor Curran asked what Council fund would be used for this venture, and was told the Council’s general fund.

Councillor Curran asked why the authority could lose up to £200k. It was noted that the Council would need to commit up to £200k to the second fundraising which would be needed for the working capital, and liquidity fund. The Head of Corporate Resources explained how he envisaged the scheme would operate adding that if it works well this investment would pay off. Councillor Curran asked who would be leading for the LGA on the scheme, as someone highly expert on finance would be needed. He was informed the LGA had appointed an interim manager but that an independent manager would be required for the substantive position.

The Chair said that for completeness an update should go back to Mayor and Cabinet, which would ensure the decision was reported to Business Panel. The Head of Corporate Resources said that the mechanism for the next stage would be put in place for an additional report, irrespective of the proposal being successive or not.

RESOLVED that the decision of the Mayor be noted.

Supporting documents:

Decisions made by Mayor and Cabinet on 3 September 2014, item 15. PDF 218 KB

Listen