Menu
Council meetings

Agenda item

Lewisham Future Programme

Decision:

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

Minutes:

4.1      David Austin (Head of Corporate Resources) introduced the report. The following key points were noted:

 

  • The Council had to make significant savings to its budget.
  • The Lewisham Future Programme proposals provided opportunities as well as risks.
  • Officers welcomed the approach to scrutiny that had been set out by the Overview and Scrutiny committee at its meeting on 29 September.

 

4.2      Geeta Subramaniam-Mooney (Head of Crime Reduction and Supporting People) introduced savings proposal B1: reduction and remodelling of Supporting People housing & floating support services, the following key points were noted:

 

  • Funding for supporting people had previously been ring fenced grant
  • The budget had been used over a number of years to develop services for a broad client group.
  • Since 2012, the budget was no longer ring-fenced.
  • The majority of services were provided through contracts with providers in the community and voluntary sector.
  • There would be a reduction in the preventative elements of the programme.
  • In future, services would be focused on those most in need, in order to achieve the greatest impact.
  • A number of risks had been identified, which were set out in the report.
  • Changes were taking place to a range of services, including mental health and social care. Officers would work with colleagues in health and social care services to ensure effective pathways were in place to support people in crisis.

 

4.3      Geeta Subramaniam-Mooney (Head of Crime Reduction and Supporting People) and James Lee (Service Manager – prevention and inclusion) responded to questions from the Committee; the following key points were noted:

 

  • It was recognised that there might be a cumulative effect of the changes being proposed to services across the Council.
  • Further work would be carried out after decisions on the savings proposals had been taken by Mayor and Cabinet.
  • Government grants might become available to continue some services. However, in the past these tended to be time limited and of a smaller scale than the funding managed through the Council.
  • Some former service users would eventually reach the threshold for social care; but it was difficult to predict how the changes would impact on individual cases.
  • This saving proposal might result in increased costs in other areas.
  • The number of people accessing floating support services each year changed. However, approximately 2000 people would be affected by the proposed changes.

 

4.4      The Committee discussed the proposal and agreed to refer their views to Public Accounts Select Committee as follows:

 

4.5      The Committee recommends that the Council should work in a joined up way to mitigate the impacts of this proposal. The Committee believes that available resources should be focused on preventative services, where this is feasible.

 

4.6      Genevieve Macklin (Head of Strategic Housing) introduced the savings proposal M1: transfer of non housing stock from the HRA to the general fund. The following key points were noted:

 

  • Housing had taken £2.2m from its £5.5m budget in the years since 2010.
  • This had been achieved through reorganisation of staff and services as well as changes to leasing and procurement.
  • The further savings of £1m identified through the Lewisham Future Programme should be viewed in the context of the savings already delivered.
  • An accounting adjustment would be carried out to move a number of non-residential properties from the Housing Revenue Account to the General Fund.
  • Approximately £4.41m worth of garages and £5.6m of commercial property would move across.
  • Income from these assets was approximately £2m a year.
  • These properties would generate income for the General Fund and remove debts from the Housing Revenue Account.
  • There would be no impact on service delivery.
  • It was intended that more income would be generated in future years.

 

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

Supporting documents: