Agenda, decisions and minutes

That Councillor Royston be agreed as Chair and that Councillor Eiles be Vice-Chair of the Select Committee.

1.1    Resolved: that Councillor Royston be agreed as Chair and that Councillor Eiles be Vice-Chair of the Select Committee.

That the minutes of the meeting held on 13 March be agreed as an accurate record.

2.1    Resolved: that the minutes of the meeting held on 13 March be agreed as an accurate record.

3.1    Councillor Mark Ingleby declared an interest in relation to item six as trustee of Goldsmiths Community Centre (which is on Council owned land)

3.2    Councillor Liam Curran declared an interest in relation to item six as trustee of a community building owned by the Council.

There are none.

4.1       There were none.

To recommend that: officers consider 'Swiss style' signs (with timings indicating distances between walking/cycling locations)

5.1    Seamus Adams (Head of Commercial Operations and Development) introduced the report – noting the strategic programme to improve active travel in the borough. Seamus highlighted the funding available for this work as well as recent key milestones in the delivery of both active travel and sustainable streets programmes.

5.2    Seamus Adams and Zahur Khan (Director of Public Realm) responded to questions from the Committee – the following key points were noted:

·         Parking permit income from sustainable street schemes would be allocated to the implementation, operation, and ongoing maintenance of the streetscape improvements.

·         The current sustainable street scheme was premised on the implementation of controlled parking zones – it had been enhanced subsequently to implement street improvements and new facilities for streets that adopted the measures.

·         If funding for public realm improvements became available in future – then the Council would use this for general streetscape improvements. However, the funding from the sustainable streets programme was ring fenced to fund and maintain improvements.

·         A programme for electric vehicle charging was being considered for the whole borough.

·         Measures were being considered to enable residents to pay for parking permits in instalments.

·         Areas that were having their controlled parking zones reviewed would be offered the same measures as those areas having newly implemented schemes.

·         One of the aims of the programme was to ensure that footways were clear for all road users.

·         The programme would evolve over time – as would the timescale for consultations and implementation. It was likely that there would be displacement effects from the implementation of new schemes – which would require new consultations and changes the boundaries of controlled parking zones.

·         It was recognised that engagement with ward councillors was an important part of the consultation process.

·         Consideration would be given to the implementation of signage to support active travel and interchanges between active travel modes.

·         A number of issues had been raised about the implementation of dockless bike hire. A programme of new ‘geo-fencing’ was currently being implemented.

·         Figures from Lime bikes indicated that there was an exponential growth in the numbers of Lime bike users.

·         The dockless bike hire roll out would be adapted depending on future usage and demand.

·         The Council’s ambition was to implement segregated cycling infrastructure wherever possible.

·         The current year’s active travel programme had the highest allocated level of funding available ever. This was due to the focused and dedicated work of the officers working in this area.

·         Once a number of the sustainable streets projects had been implemented then there would be a review of successes and data on the roll out would be made available.

·         In law, parking income was ringfenced for the highways programme and for transport related expenditure.

·         Lewisham used the income available from parking to subsidise the concessionary fares programme. The income available did not fully meet the cost of the scheme.

·         The use of the ‘Love Clean Streets App’ was having a beneficial impact on the roll out of dockless bike hire.

·         Lessons were being  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

·         That officers consider convening a forum for community groups to support them with manging and maintaining their assets.

·         That officers continue to implement the principles of openness and transparency in relation to discussions and negotiations around the use of assets.

·         That tenants should sign up to a set of principles to ensure open access and fair operation.

·         That consideration be given to whether a small increase in rates could provide a centralised capacity for coordination and support for providers.

6.1    Petra Marshall (Senior Programme Manager) introduced the report. Petra noted the work that had been taking place between Council teams to update the Council’s approach to the management of community assets. She highlighted the continued inconsistencies in the system and the weakness of a number of the agreements and tenancies with groups occupying Council assets.

6.2    Petra Marshall, James Lee (Director of Community Services) and Sakthi Suriyaprakasam (Head of Culture and Community Development) responded to questions from the Committee – the following key points were noted:

·         It was likely that there would be a mix of tenancy arrangements and repairing responsibilities with groups in future.

·         There would be some groups who would be able (and willing) to take on longer leases with repairing and maintenance responsibilities. These groups might also be able to benefit from funding sources that the Council could not access.

·         There would also be some groups that could be supported to develop a business case and increase their capacity to take on full responsibility for a building. The new policy had provisions to take this into account.

·          It was possible that future consideration could be given to expanding the policy to include other spaces and assets owned by the Council.

·         Upfront discussions were being held with groups on how access to buildings could be maintained for existing users in the most equitable way.

·         There were no plans to police access to buildings on a regular basis. The process involved a transfer of assets (and management arrangements) on a long-term basis.

·         Groups would be required to demonstrate how they would support community access to facilities as part of the expressions of interest process.

·         There were risks involved in the new approach – which would have to be managed.

·         Lease agreements would be accompanied by a set of agreed principles. There would be annual checks on the adherence to the terms of leases (the scope of these had not yet been agreed) Nonetheless, it might be difficult to demonstrate a breach of a lease due to the non-compliance with the principles.

·         The skills to run a community group – and the skills to maintain and manage buildings were often quite different so a process of learning and capacity building would be needed in community groups to take on the new opportunities and challenges.

·         Subject to the availability of resources, the Council might look to facilitate a forum for community groups to share knowledge and expertise related to the maintenance and management of buildings.

·         The policy was designed to ensure that buildings hosting commercial businesses would be part of the commercial estate, rather than community assets.

·         There was no current budget within the Community Services Directorate for repairing and maintaining community assets. The Directorate overspent by £120k-£140k per year, which had to be found from other budgets.

·         As the tenants of buildings became more successful and profitable, it was intended that the rent review process would provide a source of income to the Council.

·         It was difficult to predict  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6.

That the Committee’s work programme for 2024-25 be submitted for consideration by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

7.1         The Committee considered the work programme report.

7.2         Resolved: that the Committee’s work programme for 2024-25 be submitted for consideration by the Overview and Scrutiny Committee.