Menu
Council meetings

Agenda item

Lewisham Future Programme - Savings Report

Decision:

 

RESOLVED: That the Committee refer the following to the Public Accounts Select Committee:

 

N4: Provide a mobile, ‘as required’, response service for residential roads instead of traditional ‘beat cased’ sweeper.

 

·         The Committee was unanimous in their view that accepting this saving proposal would seriously damage the corporate reputation of the Council and the image of the borough in the eyes of its residents and stakeholders.

·         The Committee was concerned that the public could lose faith in the Council’s ability to run services if the Council was to accept this proposal.

·         Residents may come to the view that the Council was not able to carry out other basic functions if it was not able to keep the streets clean as well as in the past.

·         It is important to retain the lessons of the “broken window” philosophy – a situation where minor environmental degradation can escalate if left unaddressed and this would apply on a borough-wide scale should the council stop regular weekly street-sweeping.

·         The introduction of a responsive ‘as and when’ service would further damage the perception of the council because residents would always end up phoning to report litter in their street as soon as it appeared.

·         Littering and fly-tipping is bad enough at present and any untidiness would give offenders greater license for their bad habits.

·         Residents may start to take less pride in keeping the borough clean themselves.

 

N6: To develop our Trade Waste customer base, improve efficiency and increase income. To negotiate an increased share of income from Parks Events.

 

·         The Council should be looking at contracts where it is the commercial landlord to increase opportunities to increase income on Trade Waste.

·         The Council should investigate whether it can enforce a requirement to undertake cleansing in an agreed zone of dispersal for park events.

·         A ‘catch-them-young’ comprehensive borough-wide anti-litter campaign needs to be introduced to all schools in order to help residents adopt life-long anti-litter habits.

 

            P2d: Review of Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) on the way in which the service consults on planning applications.  Efficiency savings based on paper, printing and postage costs.

 

·         If the Council is going to cease delivering planning notices to properties that neighbour planning application sites, improved alternatives should be in place before the change. These should be:

o   Large, bright notices in the place of the current, small, old-fashioned ‘municipal’ style A4 notices that are currently used.

The Council should develop its use of technology to be able to contact residents with a singular ‘resident profile’ that could be used by services across the Council

 

 

 

 

G2: Income Generation

 

·         The Committee supported the appointment of a designated commercially experienced officer or officers to develop the Council’s income generation strands.

 

Therefore, the Select Committee recommends that Public Accounts advise the Mayor of its view that:

 

·         He should note the comments on N6, P2d and G2

·         He should accept saving proposals: N3, N5, and N6

·         He should reject the savings proposal N4

·         He should accept saving proposals: P2a, P2b, P2c, and P2d.

·         He should accept the savings proposal G2

 

 

Minutes:

4.1       David Austin, Head of Corporate Resources, presented the report to the Committee. The key points to note were:

 

  • Given that austerity in non-protected areas of public spending is to continue and the uncertainty in potential impacts for local government to 2019/20, the officer report updated the Committee on the savings proposals prepared against the current target of £45m for 2016/17 and 2017/18. 
  • The report puts forward savings of £12m for 2016/17, and also presents £13m of new proposals for 2017/18 and a summary of the work ongoing to prepare these savings and, where necessary, close the remaining gap to achieve the £45m target.  The estimated saving requirement for 2016/17 is between £25m and £35m.
  • In July 2015 Lewisham’s Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS) to 2019/20 was presented to Mayor & Cabinet.  After allowing for the £11m of savings previously agreed for 2016/17 and 2017/18, the MTFS savings estimates to 2019/20 ranges from £57m to £105m.
  • Pending the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) in November and the provisional Local Government Financial Settlement (LGFS) in December, there is considerable uncertainty around the funding that Local Authorities will receive over the duration of this Government to 2019/20.  The Council has considered the Local Government Association (LGA) and London Councils modelling along with its own best assumptions.  
  • The proposals under ‘N’ and ‘P’ are mainly specific to this Committee.
  • Referrals would in the first instance go to Public Accounts Select Committee (PAC) on 29 September, before it sends a final referral to Mayor and Cabinet on 30 September. The final budget will go to Mayor and Cabinet on 25 February 2016.

 

4.2       In response to questions from the Committee, the following was noted:

           

            N3: Review of Lewisham’s Waste Services (Doorstep collection & disposal)

Transfer of estates Bulky Waste disposal costs to Lewisham Homes

 

  • A review of the borough’s waste services is currently underway; it is not proposed that services will change for residential homes, but charges on some services like garden waste service might be introduced.
  • It is also proposed to re-charge bulky waste disposal costs to Lewisham Homes. It was noted in the efficiency review of waste and recycling services that high levels of bulky-lumber waste were being produced from Lewisham Homes managed estates. Although the majority of collection costs are re-charged to Lewisham Homes, disposal costs are currently paid for by the Council. The current position does not incentivise housing managers to reduce the amount of waste being generated.
  • Some caretakers manage their bulky waste items more efficiently than others; this will however encourage all Lewisham Homes managed estates to improve efficiencies in this area.
  • It would be more effective to change behaviour in respect of managing bulky waste items by re-charging than reducing the service to collect bulky waste.
  • The service will be monitored to ensure that the re-charging policy does not encourage fly-tipping.
  • Even though some residents are closer to the London Borough of Bromley’s bulky waste collection site, it was not free for Lewisham residents to use it.

 

N4: Provide a mobile, ‘as required’, response service for residential roads instead of traditional ‘beat cased’ sweeper.

 

  • There has been a 26% reduction in street cleaning services staff since 2010. With the savings earmarked for this area, something radical needed to be developed to be able to make the saving and still provide an adequate street cleaning service. Therefore a complete re-organisation and re-assessment of the service was required.
  • Street cleaning services have already done ‘blitzes’ in parts of the borough that needed to be improved quickly.
  • To deliver the savings and make the service work, there would need to be a shift in emphasis from static street sweeping operatives towards an increase in vehicles, mobile teams, machinery and mobile technology.
  • The savings proposal would require the loss of between 40-50 Sweeper posts. The precise number to be determined upon reorganisation of the beat based service to mobile response units. Full details of the proposed reorganisation are not yet published, but it will lead to a significant change in the way the service is delivered.
  • Officers are aware of the need for herbicide application on pavement areas for some streets.
  • In respect of LoveLewisham, apps like these first started in this borough, but with the budget pressures and how cleaning services are now changing, a new in-house, Peer2Peer version of the LoveLewisham app is being developed to facilitate the proposed reorganisation.
  • Officers are in discussions with commercial developers and businesses to ensure that they clean the streets in front of their buildings
  • It would be difficult and challenging for the Council to organise a programme to involve residents to partake in street cleaning blitzes on their roads at this time.
  • Some resources will be directed in to buying mobile units to facilitate the change in service.

 

N5: Review of Lewisham’s Passenger Transport Service; to develop our Trade Waste customer base, improve efficiency and increase income. To negotiate an increased share of income from Parks Events.

 

  • The Review of Lewisham’s Passenger Transport Service had already been discussed at the Children and Young People Select Committee.

 

N6: To develop our Trade Waste customer base, improve efficiency and increase income. To negotiate an increased share of income from Parks Events.

 

  • The proposal is to develop the borough’s trade waste customer base, to improve its efficiency and increase income. The proposal also includes the ambition to negotiate an increased share of income from Parks events.
  • Officers will be looking to minimise back office charges to make services as automated as possible.
  • Officers will look at Council contracts to see whether there is additional trade waste revenue available from commercial properties.
  • Glendales already have contract arrangements in place for managing parks such as Blackheath, but there will be opportunities to get revenue from Glendales, concert promoters etc. for trade waste.
  • In terms of the areas around the parks, waste is usually collected by the Council, unless there is a trade waste enforcement notice already in place.

 

P:        Planning and Economic Development

 

  • There will be a reorganisation of the team to ensure that it uses changes in technology as effectively as possible.
  • There will also be a Council wide review to include the role and function of the Economic Development service in delivering place making, business development and employment objectives. This will look at seeing if European Union (EU) Social Fund and Greater London Authority (GLA) could be accessed to help with delivering services.
  • In terms of Section 106 and fee income, Section 106 money is a defined pot of money and related to the activities to support that particular programme. The £45,000 income from this would be spread across the whole service.
  • The Council are unable to increase the charges on developers who do not build much social/affordable housing as the rules stipulated by Government make this very difficult.  Developers produce Viability Assessments, which are assessed independently and then analysed by the Planning Service to assess the deliverability of the development and how much affordable housing can reasonably be requested.
  • The Council is looking, in one of its workstreams called ‘Customer Transformation’, at building an infrastructure that makes it possible to produce one ‘resident profile’ to contact residents over a variety of services.

 

G2: Income Generation

 

  • The guiding principle of the income generation strand is to ensure that income can be a means by which to ensure a service is sustainable in the longer term.
  • Officers will look at fees and charges on an annual basis to ensure that they are reviewed and altered where necessary.
  • Officers are looking at whether a specific officer post can be developed to concentrate on income generation, and is being discussed as part of the PAC’s Income Generation Review.
  • The proposal for a Sustainability Consultancy as discussed at the Committee in June has come across some legal obstacles, plus the Government has reduced funding for some sustainability projects which has made the current plans more difficult. The proposals are now currently being reviewed.

 

4.3       RESOLVED: That the Committee refer the following to the Public Accounts Select Committee:

 

N4: Provide a mobile, ‘as required’, response service for residential roads instead of traditional ‘beat cased’ sweeper.

 

·         The Committee was unanimous in their view that accepting this saving proposal would seriously damage the corporate reputation of the Council and the image of the borough in the eyes of its residents and stakeholders.

·         The Committee was concerned that the public could lose faith in the Council’s ability to run services if the Council was to accept this proposal.

·         Residents may come to the view that the Council was not able to carry out other basic functions if it was not able to keep the streets clean as well as in the past.

·         It is important to retain the lessons of the “broken window” philosophy – a situation where minor environmental degradation can escalate if left unaddressed and this would apply on a borough-wide scale should the council stop regular weekly street-sweeping.

·         The introduction of a responsive ‘as and when’ service would further damage the perception of the council because residents would always end up phoning to report litter in their street as soon as it appeared.

·         Littering and fly-tipping is bad enough at present and any untidiness would give offenders greater license for their bad habits.

·         Residents may start to take less pride in keeping the borough clean themselves.

 

N6: To develop our Trade Waste customer base, improve efficiency and increase income. To negotiate an increased share of income from Parks Events.

 

·         The Council should be looking at contracts where it is the commercial landlord to increase opportunities to increase income on Trade Waste.

·         The Council should investigate whether it can enforce a requirement to undertake cleansing in an agreed zone of dispersal for park events.

·         A ‘catch-them-young’ comprehensive borough-wide anti-litter campaign needs to be introduced to all schools in order to help residents adopt life-long anti-litter habits.

 

            P2d: Review of Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) on the way in which the service consults on planning applications.  Efficiency savings based on paper, printing and postage costs.

 

·         If the Council is going to cease delivering planning notices to properties that neighbour planning application sites, improved alternatives should be in place before the change. These should be:

o   Large, bright notices in the place of the current, small, old-fashioned ‘municipal’ style A4 notices that are currently used.

The Council should develop its use of technology to be able to contact residents with a singular ‘resident profile’ that could be used by services across the Council

 

 

 

 

G2: Income Generation

 

·         The Committee supported the appointment of a designated commercially experienced officer or officers to develop the Council’s income generation strands.

 

Therefore, the Select Committee recommends that Public Accounts advise the Mayor of its view that:

 

·         He should note the comments on N6, P2d and G2

·         He should accept saving proposals: N3, N5, and N6

·         He should reject the savings proposal N4

·         He should accept saving proposals: P2a, P2b, P2c, and P2d.

·         He should accept the savings proposal G2

 

 

Supporting documents: