Tamil Petition and Full Council this week

Last Wednesday was full council. I handed in a petition to the Mayor and the local MPs signed by 428 residents calling for a ceasefire in Sri Lanka. (Picture shows Darren and me with local Tamil residents outside the town hall before the meeting). I'm not suggesting the Mayor of Lewisham has the power to achieve world peace (though it would be nice if he did), and realise it was a gesture more than anything, but I was keen to do something to support local Tamil residents and shopkeepers, given who concerned they all are about what is going on in Sri Lanka. Many of them have either lost relatives in the conflict or have lost contact with family members since January, when the violence escalated. The petition read:

"We, the undersigned residents of Lewisham are alarmed at the escalating violence in Sri Lanka and the deaths of many civilians over the past few months. We note the grave concerns that many Tamil residents of the borough have for friends and relatives caught up in the conflict zone.

"We call upon the Mayor of Lewisham and Lewisham's MPs to write to the government and urge it to work to secure an immediate ceasefire in Sri Lanka and for the free and unrestricted flow of food, medicine and international aid agencies into the conflict zone. "

There was a similarly worded motion proposed by Whitefoot councillor Pete Pattisson, which received cross-party support.

Wednesday was a busy night for motions, as there were 6 on the agenda, although one was withdrawn.

I proposed a motion calling on Lewisham's 3 MPs to support the Fuel Poverty private members' bill currently in parliament (Jim Dowd to his credit supported this, but Joan Ruddock as junior climate change minister talked it out, while Bridget Prentice was absent). The Mayor spoke against, arguing it would commit the government to spending lots of money on insulating houses (yes, that's the point, we want the government to spend money on that, rather than Trident and helping people buy new cars) and Labour all voted against, but it was supported by the Greens, Socialists and Lib Dems and just passed, despite an indecisive Tory failing to vote either way. Lib Dem Cllr Philip Peake had proposed a similar motion, but withdrew it and supported ours (thank you!).

Other motions included one proposed by Socialist councillor Chris Flood condemning the way Network Rail has been destroying the green corridor through New Cross and Brockley in recent months, and calling on the Mayor to contact them as a matter of urgency to ensure the area is replanted with saplings. Mike proposed a few minor amendments to correct a bit of terminology and to add a bit about enhancing biodiversity, but we were happy to support this, and it was passed unanimously.

We also supported a Labour motion calling for a new station at Surrey Canal Road as part of the East London line phase 2 works, and a Lib Dem motion on the NHS, expressing concern at any proposals to end 'co-terminosity' (this was a new term for me, but means when areas covered by a primary care trust are the same as the local authority boundaries. Seems to make sense to me, particularly in order for proper scrutiny of service provision to take place).

Well that's my review of Wednesday's Council meeting, in a nutshell, albeit somewhat tardier and less concise than the Twitters from Lewisham Central councillor Andrew Milton).

Lights on or off at Laurence House?

Lewisham Council is doing a consultation on whether or not to turn off the floodlighting of Laurence House in Catford. This was prompted by a formal question from Brockley councillor Darren Johnson last year, who says it is a waste of energy and money. Darren argues that he doesn't oppose the floodlighting of beautiful landmark buildings, but that Laurence House Library is hardly the Arc de Triumphe. I tend to agree and think that if street lighting is doing its job, extra floodlighting isn't necessary. What do you think? You can complete the survey online here.

From the Council's press office:
Lewisham Council is asking residents for their views on the external lighting which is currently used to illuminate the 6-storey Council office block and library in Catford town centre.

Informal feedback has suggested that some people value the night-time lighting as it can create a sense of security, generate a positive local atmosphere and is a feature of the local area. However, there are costs involved. The lighting costs approximately £2,700 a year and produces an estimated 29 tonnes of CO2 a year, which contributes to global warming.

Cllr Heidi Alexander, Lewisham Council's Cabinet Member for Regeneration, said: "There's a choice to be made about lighting Laurence House at night and we want to hear people's views. I know that some people value the effect the lighting has on the local area after dark. But there is a cost involved, financially and environmentally, and as a Council we want to make sure we are doing everything we can to use energy efficiently and reduce unnecessary costs."

That said, while every little helps, it's kind of small fry in the bigger scheme of things, and we really need to get insulating every house in the borough which would save thousands of tonnes of CO2 a year as well as reducing the impact on residents of rising fuel bills.

Questions to Mayor & Cabinet: March

Please see below, for information, the questions I asked to Mayor & Cabinet this month and the responses. As the budget discussions were rather lengthy, there wasn't an opportunity to ask supplementary questions, which I had wanted to do on the first question, which was in relation to a particular derelict shop premises on Ladywell Road.

Question by Cllr Luxton of the Deputy Mayor
The Council has had several notable successes in recent months in using EDMOs (empty dwelling management orders) to bring empty homes back into use. On how many occasions in the past year has the Council used section 215 or other planning enforcement powers to try and bring derelict and run-down commercial properties back into use? How does this compare with the neighbouring boroughs of Bexley, Bromley, Southwark and Greenwich? From April owners of empty commercial properties will no longer be exempt from business rates. What plans are there to support, encourage and where necessary prod property owners to bring their properties back into use?

Reply

During the current financial year two Section 215 Notices were issued relating to derelict properties and their physical appearance. The vacant properties, previously in commercial use – nos. 159 and 161 New Cross Road – are adjoining and the Notices required that the external appearance of both be improved. The aim, of course, is to encourage the owner, through carrying out the necessary repairs, to bring the derelict properties back into use, but it is beyond the scope of the S215 Notice to require for beneficial re-use, being limited only to ensuring that they are better maintained.

The above properties fall within the boundary of the New Cross Gate New Deal for Communities Area boundary. Run as a central part of the Government strategy for regeneration in deprived areas the programme includes such initiatives as “Restoration Retail” which uses grant aid to effect repairs and restoration on derelict properties. In this particular instance a twin-tracked approach is being taken between the Council and the NDC body to ensure that the necessary works are undertaken. In the event that the owners fail to co-operate a charge can be placed on the land for future recovery of costs incurred.

As regards the use of S215 powers by other neighbouring authorities no figures are yet available but the Council is intending to carry out a benchmarking exercise in this connection.

In Town Centre areas the Council’s Economic Development Team, through the Town Centre Managers, will encourage the owners of un-let properties to bring these into use for occupation by new businesses that will enhance the Centre, particulary now that there will no longer be any business rate exemption.

With regard to Empty Dwelling Management Orders, this initiative was introduced through the Housing Act 2004; the intention being to bridge the gap between voluntary measures and existing compulsory purchase powers. Such an Order enables the local housing authority to take responsibility of managing a property and for ensuring it is occupied. It is however, only used as a last resort where it is clear that an owner has no intention to bring the property back into occupation.

The decision whether to pursue an EDMO – the property needs to have been empty for at least 6 months – is not a Planning issue, instead, being entirely at the discretion of the Local Housing Association (LHA). It is thought that the threat of issuing such an Order may be sufficient to put pressure on the owner to enter into constructive dialogue with the authority to agree the best course of action to secure re-occupation.

Question by Cllr Luxton of the Deputy Mayor

The recent public campaign to protect the Rivoli Ballroom, which resulted in the building being granted grade 2 listed status by English Heritage, was a great example of local residents acting swiftly to protect a local building. Does the Council Planning Department proactively apply for listed status for any buildings in the borough which it feels merit such status, or does it rely solely on amenities societies and local residents to do this? Please provide examples of where buildings have been listed as a result of the Council applying for them to be listed. Has the Council carried out any consultation with residents and amenities societies about local buildings that they feel should be protected/listed?

Reply
The great majority of the listed buildings in the borough were listed following a comprehensive survey in the 1970’s by English Heritage’s predecessor organisation. Since then other buildings have been added as listing criteria evolve or as buildings missed by the original survey are identified. They are usually put forward by either the Council, individuals and amenity societies, or English Heritage.

Examples of buildings put forward for listing by the Council Planning Service include the ex London County Council (LCC) fire station at 340 Lewisham High Street, 227 Deptford High Street, 329-331, 369 New Cross Road and the White Hart Pub in New Cross.

The Planning Service is usually aware of the aspirations of local people and amenity societies to achieve listed status for particular buildings and, where appropriate, will provide advice and support, for example the Rivoli Ballroom. The council wrote to English Heritage in support of listing the Rivoli in December 2007.

In the case of Council owned buildings the Planning Service always maintains a neutral position.

English Heritage periodically carry out thematic building reviews. For example a national review of post war public housing lead to the Passfields Estate, Bromley Road and Lammas Green, Sydenham Hill being listed recently, and a review of London cemeteries lead to parts of Brockley/Ladywell cemeteries being listed.

In terms of consultation exercises, the regular review of conservation areas (for example St Mary’s in 2006/7) involves consultation exercises which may identify buildings suitable to put forward for listing. There is also an on-going programme to update the list of locally listed buildings (buildings of local as opposed to national special architectural of historic interest), in conjunction with local amenity societies. This process could also identify buildings worthy of national listing.

Question by Cllr Luxton of the Mayor

Following the recent visit of Fouad Hanini from Beit Fourik on the West Bank in Palestine, has the Mayor taken any steps to establish closer links between the people of Beit Fourik and Lewisham?

Reply
It was a pleasure to welcome to Lewisham Fouad Hanani during his visit to the UK in November and I was pleased that his attendance at our full Council meeting was so well received.

Lewisham has been very active over many years in developing partnerships with local communities overseas. Unfortunately, we work with very limited resources and we are not in a position to enter into new civic partnerships at this time. But I welcome contact with overseas visitors and the support the Council provides to such exchanges of information and experience. I am always pleased to hear about the efforts that local communities around the world are making in tackling the political, economic and social challenges of our time. I am sure that I speak on behalf of all members in wishing Fouad and his colleagues well in serving the people of Beit Fourik.

Question by Cllr Luxton of the Cabinet Member for Customer Services
Does the Council have a comprehensive, up-to-date database of residents associations within the borough, both those for council tenants and in private housing areas. If so, how do new residents associations get added to the list and if not, would you agree that it would be useful to establish one?

Reply
The Council does not have a comprehensive database of residents associations within the borough.

We do however have records of Residents Associations within the Council’s housing stock. The Council’s principal housing management agents; Lewisham Homes, Dunlop Hayward and Regenter B3 all maintain up to date records of the residents associations that they regularly engage within their individual areas. Lewisham Tenants contribute as part of their rent to the Lewisham Tenants Fund (LTF) an independent organisation which supports local resident associations through funding and advice. Any new TRAs would be added to the housing management agents records and then passed onto the Council.

Similarly Registered Social Landlords (RSL) partners maintain records of residents associations within their own stock as required by Housing Corporation regulations.

The Local Assemblies Programme will be building up a comprehensive list of community organisations, including resident associations in each ward, over the next 6-12 months.

Question by Cllr Luxton of the Cabinet Member for Customer Services

With the welcome expansion of recycling facilities in the borough, there have been a proliferation in the number of wheelie bins on pavements, sometimes causing problems on narrow streets and adding to existing street clutter. In some areas black bins have been replaced with smaller bins, which is welcome, but with the potential rolling out of a third bin in the future for kitchen and garden waste, street clutter and obstructions of pavements by wheelie bins are likely to be exacerbated. What steps is the Council considering to deal with this problem?

Reply
At the present time residents can request to have a green wheelie bin for their recycling. This tends to be in areas where households can accommodate two bins.

Current services have been trialled in areas that can accommodate a number of bins within the boundaries of the property. Future service planning will take into account the issue of how many bins street properties can accommodate, which may mean offering residents a number of possible solutions.

January Questions to Mayor & Cabinet

Below are the questions I submitted to Mayor & Cabinet for last Wednesday's Full Council meeting. Unfortunately we ran out of time to ask supplementary questions, but if I'd had the opportunity I would have asked the deputy mayor why she feels no need to submit a formal response to the Heathrow Consultation, given that the impact of an increase in aviation would not only increase air and noise pollution for Lewisham residents but also negate any reductions in carbon emissions that Lewisham Council manages to achieve.

Question
Will Lewisham Council be submitting a formal response to the public consultation on Heathrow airport expansion, given the likely negative impact on Lewisham residents' quality of life from additional noise and air pollution?

Reply
The council does not intend to submit a formal response to the public consultation on adding capacity at Heathrow.

Question by Councillor Luxton of the Cabinet Member for Customer Services
How successful have the Tetrapak recycling banks been since their installation last year, approximately how many tonnes of waste have been diverted from the incinerator as a result, and are there any plans to expand the scheme by increasing the number of such recycling banks in the borough?

Reply
The Tetrapak bins have proved popular with residents. During the period from their installation in August to November, 584.75kg of Tetrapaks have been collected. The figure has increased steadily each month throughout this period from 33kg in August to 220kg in November.

The five Tetrapak recycling bins are provided by Bywaters Waste Management on behalf of Tetrapak UK. Five bins were allocated to each of the London Boroughs, and there are no plans for Tetrapak to increase this in the near future.

Question by Councillor Luxton of the Cabinet Member for Customer Services
Please clarify how residents should safely dispose of low-energy light bulbs, batteries and waste electrical equipment? How many collection points for these items do we have in the borough and how does this compare with neighbouring Greenwich?
Reply

Greenwich has introduced bring sites to dispose of Waste Electrical & Electronic Equipment (WEEE) in addition to their Reuse & Recycling Centre. However, since the new WEEE regulations came into force last year, it is the manufacturers of electrical items that have a responsibility to properly dispose of them. Some stores offer a take-back service. If this is not available, Lewisham Council has registered as a Designated Collection Facility to enable residents to take their WEEE items, which include light bulbs, to the Reuse & Recycling Centre. Bulky items can be collected by the council at a cost of £15 for three items or £30 for fridges / freezers. Batteries can also be safely disposed of at any Sainsbury’s store, where people can ask for a battery disposal bag at the customer services desk.

Question by Councillor Luxton of the Cabinet Member for Customer Services
Recent casework of mine has uncovered the fact that the council is currently working to a policy of not repairing broken benches but instead replacing them entirely even where a simple repair would safely restore it to use. Does the Deputy Mayor agree that, as we are supposed to be moving to a low-carbon, low-waste, resource-efficient economy, this is a waste of council resources and runs completely counter to the 'reduce, re-use, recycle' hierarchy that the council urges residents to adopt? How will she spread the 'reduce, reuse' culture through all council departments with responsibility for maintenance?"

Reply
I understand that this relates specifically to the occasional street bench where the cost of the repair is in excess of the replacement costs. Officers are aware that this is not an ideal situation and are currently trying to engage a local organisation that may be able to carry out repair more cost effectively than the Council’s larger contractors.

As regards ensuring that all Council Departments are aware of their environmental responsibilities, all services are required to regularly demonstrate how they are improving their environmental performance as part of the council’s annual service planning process.

Questions to Mayor & Cabinet

Each month councillors (and for that matter any member of the public too) are allowed to submit questions to Mayor & Cabinet and to receive written responses at full council. There is then a fixed period of time within the meeting to ask supplementary questions. Below are the questions I asked at the November meeting (seems a long time ago now) and the responses I received, and underneath that, my questions for January's meeting. The Save Ladywell Pool campaign used the public questions to great effect and meetings have simply not been the same since Max Calo and friends stopped asking questions!

Question by Councillor Luxton of the Cabinet Member for Customer Services
How many Victorian properties that come under the Brockley PFI contract but are outside of Brockley Conservation area are due to have their wooden sash windows ripped out and replaced with UPVC ones? Can you confirm that leaseholders have the right to get their own replacement wooden sash windows installed instead if they prefer (with notice to the authority's contractor 3 months prior to the Authority’s contractor commencing work on the leaseholder’s block)?
Reply
On a contractual basis, the information requested has not been required and would therefore, be difficult and time consuming to collect. However we have previously been asked to gather the same information for the area between the Brockley conservation area and the St Mary’s Conservation area.
We can advise that in the area between the Brockley and St Mary's conservation areas, there are 44 properties that are likely to have their sash windows replaced with UPVC.

The Authority does permit Leaseholders to carry out window replacement, at their own cost, should they wish to do this, but there are a number of conditions attached.
The leaseholder/s must firstly write to the Authority to request permission to carry out this work.
The leaseholder must give the Authority and the Authority’s contractor at least 3 months notice of his/her intent. (This is 3 months prior to the Authority’s contractor commencing work on the leaseholder’s block). This is to give the Authority’s contractor enough time to cancel any orders that it may have placed for the leaseholder’s windows and thus not incur additional costs, which may be passed to the leaseholder.
The Authority OR its contractor, will provide the Leaseholder with a window specification which the Leaseholder’s contractor will need to comply with. In addition to obtaining the Council’s permission as landlord, the leaseholder will also be required to obtain any consents (planning approval, building control etc) which may be necessary.
The leaseholder will then need to provide the Authority with written evidence that they have engaged in a contract with a window installer/ manufacturer, to carry out the window replacement. This is to ensure that the window replace will be carried out within a reasonable time and will not over run any other works being carried out to the building by the contractor.

Question by Councillor Luxton of the Mayor
Would the Mayor consider making it a condition at next year's People's Day that traders use only compostable paper plates and cups and not polystyrene, to reduce the volume of non-recyclable waste created by the event? Such a condition has worked well at Glastonbury Festival, which is now a polystyrene free zone and recycles and composts a large proportion of the waste produced.
Reply
The Arts Service are working closely with Continental Drifts, the contracted production company for People’s Day, to explore solutions to the use of non-compostable catering supplies, and investigate the policies of similar community festivals and events in order to identify a set of standards for caterers and traders.
It has proved difficult to attract high quality catering concessions to a one day event with a perceived low income visitor demographic. People’s Day has worked over several years to develop relationships with many local catering providers and works hard to offer a culturally diverse range of food options.
Many of the catering providers have expressed concern over the financial and practical implication of sourcing specialist containers for this event alone. The Peoples Day Team is keen to continue to support local businesses and maintain the Council's longstanding relationships with traders, and to adopt a phased approach to introducing new guidelines.
With these factors in mind, in 2008 Peoples Day is likely to follow the model adopted by Southwark Council Events Team and buy corn starch or paper plates and cups to sell on to caterers for use at the event. This takes away the onus from catering providers to source suppliers. The Council will make it clear that it plans to enforce strict environmental guidelines in 2009, many other festival organisers will be doing the same so that it will be in the traders' commercial interest to use only environmentally friendly products.

Question by Councillor Luxton of the Mayor
Would the Mayor consider following the example set by the Mayors of London and New York in providing tap water for staff and visitors, rather than bottled water, thus both saving money and eliminating the pollution and wasted energy in needlessly transporting the water?
Reply
The Council’s bottled water contract will end in June 2008. Works are being planned to coincide with the end of this contract to replace as much bottled water provision as possible with mains fed drinking water.
Encouragement will be given to all staff to use tap water wherever practicable however, given that it is a health and safety requirement to provide drinking water in the work place there will be a need to provide bottled water where it is impractical to provide an accessible mains fed drinking water outlet.
I will also ask officers to investigate both the financial and environmental impact of current and alternative arrangements such as those referred to and also the use of refillable bottles as at Local Government House and also the bottling of local tap water as is done in Ekurhuleni, our sister authority in South Africa

Questions for January Meeting:

1) Question for Mayor
Will Lewisham Council be submitting a formal response to the public consultation on Heathrow airport expansion, given the likely negative impact on Lewisham residents' quality of life from additional noise and air pollution?
2) Cabinet Member for Customer Services
How successful have the Tetrapak recycling banks been since their installation last year, approximately how many tonnes of waste have been diverted from the incinerator as a result, and are there any plans to expand the scheme by increasing the number of such recycling banks in the borough?
3) Cabinet Member for Customer Services
Could the cabinet member for customer services please clarify how residents should safely dispose of low-energy light bulbs, batteries and waste electrical equipment? How many collection points for these items do we have in the borough and how does this compare with neighbouring Greenwich?
4) Question to the Deputy Mayor
Recent casework of mine has uncovered the fact that the council is currently working to a policy of not repairing broken benches but instead replacing them entirely even where a simple repair would safely restore it to use. Does the Deputy Mayor agree that, as we are supposed to be moving to a low-carbon, low-waste, resource-efficient economy, this is a waste of council resources and runs completely counter to the 'reduce, re-use, recycle' hierarchy that the council urges residents to adopt? How will she spread the 'reduce, reuse' culture through all council departments with responsibility for maintenance?

Full Council

A busy week and I’m only now catching up with posting a few things here, so bear with me as a post a barrage of things I’ve been meaning to post for a few days.

Wednesday was full council, the first one since July. I asked three questions of cabinet members; one on the plans for the new pool (which is aiming for zero carbon emissions, compared to the approximate 636 tonnes the existing pool emits in its annual energy use), another on pest control (killing squirrels, to be more specific, relating to some casework in the ward where pest control had made repeated visits to a council property to trap or poison squirrels in the loft, but as building services had each time failed to block the holes up the squirrels were coming in through, they kept returning and more and more were killed) and a third on whether the Mayor agreed that we need more community notice boards (no, he doesn't, he thinks the libraries and Lewisham Life are sufficient for advertising events and that notice boards contribute to street clutter - not sure I agree, not everyone plans their local event far enough in advance to meet the copy deadlines for Lewisham Life, and many people don't read Lewisham Life or go to local libraries. Arguably we all should, but a poster on a noticeboard can be a way of reaching out to people who wouldn't otherwise be aware of your event or organisation) . The questions and answers can be found here.

The Green Group was disappointed that the Labour and Tory groups voted to end the meeting at 10pm, before business was finished and before we had got to our motion on Adult Social Care, which a number of members of the public had been patiently waiting in the public gallery for. We immediately resubmitted it and it should be the first motion on next month’s agenda. Next time perhaps we will be a bit pushier and try to get the agenda re-ordered if members of the public are waiting and it looks like we won't get through the whole agenda. Labour proposed an amendment to the motion which we were prepared to accept to get cross-party support. Basically, it was calling on the Mayor to "work with London Councils and
other stakeholders to lobby central government to tackle the national adult social care crisis and commit to more appropriate funding levels". More on full council on Dean’s blog.

Lewisham is a 3-star borough (but not for housing)

The Audit Commission’s Comprehensive Performance Assessment Report for 2006 was published earlier this week. Lewisham has had no overall change in their score of 3 stars (Improving Well), though it’s worth noting that we only got a 2 for housing.

Cooperate assessment 3
Use of Resources 3
Children and young people 3
Social Care 3
Housing 2
Environment 3
Culture 2
Benefits 4

See page 54 of the report for overview.