Agenda, decisions and minutes

that the minutes of the meeting held on 8 November be agreed as an accurate record.

1.1      That the minutes of the meeting on 8 November be agreed as an accurate record.

1.2      Resolved: that the minutes of the meeting held on 8 November be agreed as an accurate record.

There are none

that the report be noted. It was also agreed that the Committee would request from officers a list of roles and responsibilities for development plans in Catford. In addition, it was noted that the following information would be shared: the slides from the presentation; the most recent update on the Building for Lewisham programme; the joint (Lewisham/LB Southwark/Transport for London) Bakerloo Line Extension engagement plan and information on the future operator for the CCC.

4.1    Charlotte Harrison (Head of Strategic Regeneration) introduced the report with a presentation (available alongside these minutes). Charlotte provided an overview of the key regeneration schemes in Catford as well as some timelines for their development.

4.2    Charlotte Harrison and Patrick Dubeck (Director for Inclusive Regeneration) responded to questions from the Committee – the following key points were noted:

·         The report only provided an update on schemes that were in the Council’s control. This did not include the development on Catford Island (formerly referred to as ‘Plassy Island’ - but further information would be provided following the meeting.

·         The Thomas Lane Yard project fell within the remit of the ‘Building for Lewisham Programme’ and was being overseen by the Council’s Housing Directorate.

·         That information would be shared on the 2024 Bakerloo Line Extension engagement plan.

·         If the Bakerloo line extension went ahead it would utilise the national rail infrastructure beyond Lewisham.

·         A process was in place to appoint an operator for the Catford Constitutional Club (CCC). The Catford Regeneration Partnership would retain the freehold for the site.

·         The Inclusive Regeneration Division had oversight of the development taking place in Catford and coordinated work with officers across the Council. This would change over time – as the programme for Catford developed.

·         The Planning Team would be responsible for the coordination of planning applications from developers in Catford Town Centre.

·         Reliance on an individual person to coordinate the delivery of activity in Catford would not be desirable. The Council did not have all of the statutory powers to coordinate the delivery of all the work taking place in Catford.

·         Any questions or concerns about the delivery of projects in Catford should be directed to Patrick and Charlotte (or officers in their roles).

·         Officers were confident that the resources were in place to coordinate and deliver the programme for Catford.

·         The consultation carried out by Transport for London (TfL) on the road realignment included a question about perceptions of improvements to the town centre. The detail regarding these improvements was quite generic – which might explain the low rate of positive responses.

·         As improvement schemes came forward there would be additional consultations with residents.

·         There was a recognised gap between consultations on the proposals for Catford and the reality of delivery over an extended period of years.

4.3       In Committee discussion – the following key point was also noted:

·      Members would welcome a single point of contact for the delivery of works taking place in Catford. The point was made that a high level of coordination and integration was required to make the regeneration of Catford as successful as possible (and to minimise disruption for local people).

4.4    Resolved: that the report be noted. It was also agreed that the Committee would request from officers a list of roles and responsibilities for development plans in Catford. In addition, it was noted that the following information would be shared: the slides from the presentation; the most recent update on the Building for Lewisham  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

that the report be noted. It was also agreed that additional information would return to the Committee in future regarding:

·         The key performance indicators for the management of dockless bike hire schemes.

·         The communication taking place to support the roll out of dockless bikes.

·         Map of existing cycle ways and a commitment to provide this information to those completing cycle training.

·         The number of children receiving cycle training and the extent of that training.

5.1    Seamus Adams (Head of Commercial Operations and Development) introduced the report. Seamus outlined the progress that had been made on: the integrated active travel strategy; dockless bike hire; cycle training in schools and cycle network development.

5.2    Seamus Adams and Petros Ximerakis (Head of Strategic Transport and Highways) responded to questions from the Committee – the following key points were noted:

·         Work was taking place with the Council’s communications team to support the roll out of dockless bike hire in the borough.

·         A map of cycleways in Lewisham would be provided to new trainees.

·         There would be a report back on the key performance indicators for the management of dockless bikes.

·         Work was taking place with Lime Bikes to understand how best to avoid people using their bikes without authorisation.

·         Information would be posted on the Council’s website about how best to report abandoned dockless bikes.

·         The integrated active travel strategy would be a key step forward for future cycle network development.

·         The strategy would indicate which interventions would be most effective in encouraging people to travel by bike (and would support future bids for funding from TfL)

·         The integrated active travel strategy would be shared with members via email for review and feedback.

·         The amount of TfL funding available for cycle training in 2024/25 had been significantly reduced – which limited the scope of the training that could be provided across multiple age groups.

·         Further information would be provided in future regarding the location of geofenced locations for dockless hire bikes. Geofenced bays for dockless cycles were only placed on the footway where this was absolutely necessary. Work was taking place with private land owners to ascertain where bays could be located on their land.

·         There would be further detailed mapping of cycle infrastructure included in the forthcoming integrated active travel strategy.

5.3    In the Committee discussion – the following key points were also noted:

·         Members welcomed the work that was taking place to deliver cycle training.

·         The additional TfL funding which was secured for cycle network development was welcome.

·         Further information should be provided on delivery dates for cycle lane development (as well as the lengths of the lanes being delivered).

·         Members would welcome pre-emptive communication with residents especially in regards to geofencing so that there is acknowledgement of the problem of bikes being left in the incorrect locations – and that there are mechanisms for reporting.

5.4    Resolved: that the report be noted. It was also agreed that additional information would return to the Committee in future regarding:

·         The key performance indicators for the management of dockless bike hire schemes.

·         The communication taking place to support the roll out of dockless bikes.

·         Map of existing cycle ways and a commitment to provide this information to those completing cycle training.

·         The number of children receiving cycle training and the extent of that training.

that the report be noted. It was also recommended that:  SMART targets should be encouraged where this was possible;  the matrix for prioritisation should balance cost, the likely carbon reduction impact and equalities (in order to support the most vulnerable and to emphasise the importance of social justice);  an easier read version of the plan would be welcome (as would updates to the information on the Council’s website incorporating the actions that individuals could take to reduce their household impact); and there should be greater integration of the annexes to better demonstrate how they relate to one another (to include clarity about what is and what is not within the Council’s control)

6.1    Martin O’Brien (Head of Climate Resilience) introduced the report. Martin outlined the progress that had been made since the declaration of the climate emergency in 2019. He also outlined some of the key successes and challenges in the previous years as well as those anticipated for the future. Martin also set out the amendments that had been made to streamline the action plan.

6.2    Martin O’Brien responded to questions from the Committee – the following key points were noted:

·         Further work would take place to consider how to prioritise the actions in the plan – this was a complex piece of work. It was acknowledged that net zero by 2030 was an ambition (rather than a target) given that the Council did not have the resources to deliver net zero by itself.

·         A distinction had been made in the plan between the emissions that the Council had control of and those it did not.

·         For those areas within the Council’s control - work was taking place to determine how to achieve ambitions in these areas.

·         There was a net-zero board which was chaired by the Executive Director for Place and coordinated work across the Council.

·         The key performance indicators were not part of the original action plan – they had been chosen to demonstrate progress. It was recognised that the impacts of the climate emergency would fall disproportionately on the most vulnerable.

·         Where Council funds were being spent,  this should be prioritised to support the most vulnerable.

·         Given the scale of resources needed the Council had to be agile and make effective use of funding as it became available.

·         A lot of the funding available was one off, time-limited and piecemeal.

·         It was difficult to make all of the actions specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and timebound (SMART) due to the availability of the data, the inconsistency of funding and the scale of ambition of some of the actions.

·         The figures that were available were not perfect – they were produced either from information collected by the Council or from Government data.

·         For each of the actions, a narrative which combined the available data with the overall ambition would likely be the most effective way to monitor progress.

·         The set of key performance indicators and actions was not fixed.

·         A more user-friendly version of the action plan would be developed and published alongside the report to Mayor and Cabinet.

·         There were a range of different actions in the plan: some with low impact and high cost, some with low impact and low cost and some with low cost and high impact. Those with the highest impact were those which required large numbers of people to make changes (and potentially take on some costs). Those with the highest cost were those relating directly to Council buildings, fleet and services.

·         Consideration would also be given to the information that was available on the Council website.

·                Climate literacy training had been made available for councillors and Council officers – in order to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

that the work programme for the Committee’s next meeting be agreed.

7.1    Members discussed the work programme for the next meeting.

7.2    Resolved: that the work programme for the Committee’s next meeting be agreed.