Agenda, decisions and minutes

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting held on 5 September be agreed as an accurate record.

RESOLVED

That the minutes of the meeting held on 5 September be agreed as an accurate record.

There were none.

There were none.

There are none.

There were none.

There were none.

Appendix 4 to follow.

RESOLVED
To recommend that the following options be considered regarding saving proposal P03 (Reduced Leisure Concessions): raising the age-based concession threshold to retirement age; increasing participation through advertising; safeguarding Pay and Play concessions by increasing concessionary membership prices by a greater proportion; seeking voluntary contributions; and ending the concession for council officers.

Witnesses

Cllr Amanda de Ryk, Cabinet Member for Finance, Resources and Performance
Cllr Edison Huynh, Cabinet Member for Culture and Communities

David Austin, Executive Director for Corporate Resources
Steve Evison, Executive Director for Place
James Lee, Director of Communities, Partnerships and Leisure

4.1.    The Chair noted that the cumulative equality impact assessment in appendix 4 had been received late, due to the need to accommodate last-minute changes to saving proposals, and was being accepted as urgent as it constituted a key element of the item.

Key points from discussion

4.2.    The Medium-Term Financial Strategy assumed a two per cent increase in council tax and one per cent increase in the Adult Social Care precept. The Office for Budget Responsibility’s analysis of the Chancellor’s Autumn Statement assumed a five per cent total increase over the next five years.

4.3.    While it had been announced via the Autumn Statement that public bodies were to be reimbursed for increased employer’s National Insurance contributions, the Statement had not contained a consequent allocation of funding or clarified whether public bodies would be reimbursed for the higher costs incurred via their contracted providers (estimated at £4m for the council) in addition to their direct payrolls (£3.5m for the council). The above-inflation increase in London Living Wage also presented an unbudgeted pressure for the council.

4.4.    The Library and Information Service and Adult Learning Lewisham had been brought together under the Communities, Education and Cultural Assets Division around two years ago. Time in motion studies suggested there were opportunities to deliver efficiencies of £70,000, without adversely affecting service delivery, by removing duplicate back-office functions and making better use of the Greater London Authority adult learning grant. There were synergies between the two services, particularly in relation to facilities management, IT support and revenue generation.

4.5.    The proposed reduction in leisure concessions was expected to result in a 30% reduction in service use. Eighty per cent of the saving was expected to result from increased membership revenue.

4.6.    A Member suggested that leisure service users who used Pay and Play could be less financially well-off than those who had memberships.

4.7.    The financial impact of increasing eligibility for the age-based leisure concession to retirement age could be modelled. However, that change could adversely impact the council’s health and well-being objectives.

4.8.    Voluntary contributions from users who could afford them were being considered for Libraries. However, leisure services operated in a more-competitive commercial environment, except in relation to swimming. There was a balance to strike between the council’s public health role and commercial role as a provider of leisure services with high running costs.

4.9.    The Mayor and Cabinet had informally discussed whether to maintain the concession for council employees. However, this could result in less income as officers were likely to withdraw their patronage.

4.10. The proposed termination of the Local Assembly programme entailed the removal of the additional support provided by their support officers. Posts were to remain to deliver the Neighbourhood Community Infrastructure Levy (NCIL) programme  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

RESOLVED

That the report be noted

Witnesses

Cllr Edison Huynh, Cabinet Member for Culture and Communities

Steve Evison, Executive Director for Place
James Lee, Director of Communities
Sakthi Suriyaprakasam, Head of Culture and Community Development

Key points from discussion

5.1.    When the Main Grants Programme was last relet, following an £800,000 cut, its focus was shifted from funding voluntary and community sector (VCS) organisation operations to providing the VCS with the tools to maximise alternative funding opportunities.

5.2.    There had been a significant increase in demand for VCS services and in complexity of need in the community, which were being met successfully by the sector despite a challenging funding environment.

5.3.    The Citizens Advice Bureau received a large proportion of Main Grants funding and of cost-of-living crisis-related funding, such as the Household Support Fund. There were a range of initiatives and VCS organisations providing support which alleviated pressure on the Citizens Advice Bureau. The council worked with its community fundraising partners to ensure every funding opportunity was pursued.

5.4.    The Department for Work and Pensions was difficult to engage with. Services focused on delivery rather than ineffective lobbying.

5.5.    A recent workshop with various council teams and health partners regarding priorities for the next cycle off the Main Grants programme had considered alignment of funding between the council and health to maximise its impact and how the intelligence held by VCS could be used to inform the direction of resources further to and including Main Grants disbursements.

5.6.    A member noted the Main Grants programme provided an opportunity for the council to provide core funding to VCS organisations, which was more challenging for them to attract than project funding. There were considerations to be worked through regarding how core funding was defined, the feasibility of was applications assessed and funding use and impact monitored.

5.7.    VCS organisations which succeeded tended to have an individual who drove activity. However, when such individuals left, those organisations often failed. Those individuals need to be recognised and supported and organisations supported to consider resilience and succession planning.

5.8.    There was a role for senior officers in making representations to government departments regarding the need for adequate funding for local authorities.

5.9.    The Better Care Fund element of the Main Grants programme was reducing significantly due to the severity of the pressures in Adult Social Care. Officers were discussing the possibility of aligning Public Health disbursements with the Main Grants programme or being allocated via the programme and introducing mechanisms for any year-end balances held by health partners to be distributed to Main Grant applicants. Health partners wished to play a more proactive role in relation to how the programme could support their agendas, such as regarding health inequalities. 

RESOLVED

That the report be noted

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.

RESOLVED

That the report be noted.

RESOLVED

That the work programme be amended as follows:

1.     ‘Tackling anti-social behaviour and Public Spaces Protection Order update’ be reframed as ‘Public Spaces Protection Order update’ and rescheduled for March 2025.

2.     ‘Local Assemblies’ be reframed as ‘Local consultation and democratic engagement’ and rescheduled for January 2025.

3.     ‘Police-community engagement and tackling crime update’ be rescheduled for March 2025.

4.     ‘Workforce equalities’ be added for January 2025.

5.     ‘Community cohesion’ be rescheduled for January 2025.

6.     ‘Lewisham Disabled People’s Commission response implementation’ be taken as an informal briefing in March 2025.

RESOLVED

That the work programme be amended as follows:

1.     ‘Tackling anti-social behaviour and Public Spaces Protection Order update’ be reframed as ‘Public Spaces Protection Order update’ and rescheduled for March 2025.

2.     ‘Local Assemblies’ be reframed as ‘Local consultation and democratic engagement’ and rescheduled for January 2025.

3.     ‘Police-community engagement and tackling crime update’ be rescheduled for March 2025.

4.     ‘Workforce equalities’ be added for January 2025.

5.     ‘Community cohesion’ be rescheduled for January 2025.

6.     ‘Lewisham Disabled People’s Commission response implementation’ be taken as an informal briefing in March 2025.