addendum

Council Question: Attendance record of Lewisham Central councillors

Thu, 29 May 2008 07:59:00 GMT

Question by Councillor Milton of the Cabinet Member for Resources

Since May 2002 until present, what is the record of attendance of each of the
councillors who have represented Lewisham Central ward at:
- meetings of the Full Council
- Select Committees of which they were members
- Planning Committees of which they were members
- meetings of other Planning Committees at which they spoke under Standing Orders
- meetings of Area Fora of which they were members.

Reply

Set out below is the record of attendance of each councillor who has represented the Lewisham Central ward.

Council and Scrutiny Committees

2002-3
Bodimeade
Council – 22.5.02, 24.7.02, 18.12.02
Public Accounts – 4.7.01, 29.10.02, 17.12.02, 22.1.03

Nash
Council – 22.5.02, 24.07.02, 25.09.02, 29.01.03
Public Accounts – 20.06.02, 04.07.01,17.09.02

Singha
Council – 22.05.02, 24.07.02, 25.09.02, 18.12.02, 29.01.03, 10.02.03,
05.03.03

Governance Select Cttee – 18.06.02, 03.07.02, 21.01.03, 13.02.03
2003-4

Bodimeade
Council – 24.09.03, 26.11.03, 28.01.04, 11.02.04, 03.03.04
Governance Select – 08.05.03, 03.12.03, 08.01.04, 25.02.04

Nash
Council – 26.11.03, 28.01.04, 11.02.04, 03.03.04
Environmental Select Cttee – 25.11.03

Singha
Council – 26.03.03, 18.06.03, 23.07.03,

Milton
Council - 26.11.03, 28.01.04, 11.02.04, 03.03.04

2004-5

Bodimeade
Council – 24.03.04, 21.04.04, 16.06.04, 21.07.05, 15.09.04, 20.10.04,
26.01.05, 09.02.05, 02.03.05
Public Accounts – 22.06.04, 13.07.04, 02.09.04, 13.10.04, 24.11.04,
08.12.04, 19.01.05, 13.04.05

Nash
Council – 24.03,04, 21.07.04, 20.10.04, 26.01.05,
Environmental Select Cttee – None

Milton
Council – 24.03.04, 21.04.04, 16.06.04, 21.07.04, 20.10.04, 17.11.04,
15.12.04, 26.01.05, 09.02.05, 02.03.05
Quality and Public Services Select cttee – 15.04.04, 20,07,04, 03.11.04,
14.12.04, 18.01.05, 01.02.05, 15.03.05, 23.03.05

2005-6

Bodimeade
Council – 13.04.05, 18.5.05, 20.07.05, 14.09.05, 26.10.05, 16.11.05,
25.01.06,
Quality Public Services – 01.06.05, 18.10.05, 29.11.05, 21.02.06

Nash
Council – 29.06.05, 26.10.05
Environment Select Cttee – None

Milton
Council – 13.04.05, 18.05.05, 20.07.05, 14.09.05, 26.10.05, 16.11.05,
14.12.05, 25.01.06, 01.03.06
Quality Public Services – 01.06.05, 26.07.05, 18.10.05, 27.10.05, 29.11.05,
10.01.06, 21.03.06

2006-7

Edgerton
Council – 24.05.06, 14,06.06, 26.07.06, 20.09.06, 01.11.06, 22.11.06,
01.03.07
Healthier Communities – 08.06.06, 06.07.06, 03.10,06, 24.10.06, 28.11.06,
17.01.07, 06.02.07, 12.03.07

Milton
Council – 24.05.06, 14.06.06, 26.07.06, 20.09.06, 01.11.06, 22.11.06,
24.01.07, 01.03.07
Healthier Communities – 08.06.06,06.07.06, 03.10.06, 28.11.06, 17.01.07,
06.02.07, 12.03.07

Mark
Council – 24.05.06, 14.06.06, 26.07.06, 20.09.06, 01.11.06, 22.11.06,
24.01.07, 01.03.07
Healthier Communities – 08.06.06, 17.01.06

2007-8

Edgerton
Council - 20.03.07, 18.04.07,25.04.07, 23.05.07, 08.06.07, 27.06,07,
18.07.07, 17.10.07, 28.11.07, 23.01.08, 03.03.08
Safer and Stronger Communities – 16.05.07, 19.09.07, 11.10,07, 12.12.08

Milton
Council - 20.03.07, 18.04.07,25.04.07, 23.05.07, 08.06.07, 27.06,07,
17.10.07, 28.11.07, 23.01.08, 03.03.08
Healthier Communities – 03.05.07, 14.06.07, 11.07.07, 04.10.07, 01.11.07,
21.11.07, 04.12.07, 16.01.08, 19.02.08, 20.03.08

Mark
Council - 18.04.07, 25.04.07, 27.06,07, 18.07.07, 17.10.07, 23.01.08
Healthier Communities - 14.06.07

Planning Committees

2002-2003
Councillor

Bodimeade- Lewisham East Planning Committee
Attended 30.5.02, 11.7.02, 3.10.02,
Under Standing Orders: 11.3.03 Strategic Planning Committee

Nash – Lewisham East Planning Committee and Strategic Planning Committee
Attended 30.5.02 (East), 18.7.02 (Strat), 3.10.02 (East)

Singha (Not a member of any Planning Committee)

2003-2004

Bodimeade - Lewisham East Planning Committee and Strategic Planning Committee
Attended 15.5.03, 7.8.03, 19.11.03
Nash (Not a member of any Planning Committee)

Milton
Under Standing Orders: 11.12.03 Lewisham East Committee

2004-2005

Bodimeade – Planning Committee C
Attended 20.1.05

Nash – Planning Committee A
Did not attend any meeting for the municipal year.

Milton – Planning Committee B (from 26.8.04)
Attended 26.8.04, 18.11.04, 6.1.05, 17.2.05

2005-2006

Bodimeade – Planning Committee A Attended 1.9.05

Nash (Not a member of any Planning Committee)

Milton – Planning Committee B
Attended 12.5.05, 23.6.05, 4.8.05, 8.12.05, 2.2.06, 16.3.06
Under Standing Orders: 19.5.05 & 13.7.05 Planning Committee C

2006-2007

Councillor
Mark – Planning Committee C
Attended 17.8.06, 9.11.06, 15.2.07

Edgerton not a member of any Planning Committee

Milton – Planning Committee B
Attended 27.4.06, 3.8.06, 14.9.06, 15.3.07
Under Standing Orders: 17.8.06 C

2007-2008

Edgerton - Planning Committee A
Attended 7.6.07, 19.7.07, 10.10.07, 22.11.07

Mark – Planning Committee C
Attended 16.8.07

Milton – Planning Committee B
Attended 10.5.07, 21.6.07, 2.8.07, 20.9.07, 25.10.07, 31.1.08, 13.3.08
Under Standing Orders: 12.4.07 (C), 4.10.07 (Strat),

2008-2009

Edgerton – Planning Committee A - None attended
Mark – Planning Committee C - Attended 8.5.08
Milton – Planning Committee B - Attended 24.4.08

Area Fora
Blackheath, Lewisham Central and Lee Area Forum
2003/4
Bodimeade - 3 February 2004
Milton – 3 February 2004
Nash did not attend

2004/5
Bodimeade – 22 March 2005
Milton – 22 March 2005
Nash did not attend
2005/6

Bodimeade – 30 January 2006
Milton – 30 January 2006
Nash did not attend

2006/7
Edgerton – 20 March 2007
Milton - 20 March 2007
Mark - did not attend

T

John Stuart Mill chosen as Greatest British Liberal

Sun, 23 Sep 2007 06:20:00 GMT

JOHN STUART MILL CHOSEN AS GREATEST BRITISH LIBERAL

Liberal Democrats have voted for the philosopher John Stuart Mill as the greatest British Liberal in
history.

Mill (1806–73), a philosopher, economist, journalist, political writer, social reformer, and, briefly,
Liberal MP, is one of the most famous figures in the pantheon of Liberal theorists. His masterpiece,
On Liberty, emphatically vindicated individual moral autonomy, and celebrated the importance of
originality and dissent; it is the symbol of office of the President of the Liberal Democrats.

Liberal Democrat delegates at the party’s autumn conference in Brighton, together with
subscribers to the Journal of Liberal History, took part in the poll, which ended at the Liberal
Democrat History Group’s fringe meeting on the last night of conference.

At the meeting, leading Liberal Democrats and historians presented the case for each of the four
candidates on the final short-list:
• For John Stuart Mill: Richard Reeves, former journalist and biographer of Mill.
• For William Ewart Gladstone: Paddy Ashdown, Liberal Democrat leader 1988–99.
• For David Lloyd George: Lord Morgan, Labour peer and historian.
• For John Maynard Keynes: Lord McNally, leader of the Liberal Democrats peers.

The result was announced to the Liberal Democrat conference just before Menzies Campbell’s
speech on Thursday 20 September.

Notes

The Great Liberal contest was organised by the Liberal Democrat History Group, which aims to
promote the study of Liberal, Liberal Democrat and SDP history. The Group publishes the quarterly
Journal of Liberal History and a series of books (the latest of which is Brack and Randall (eds.),
Dictionary of Liberal Thought (Politico’s, 2007)), organises discussion meetings and maintains the
website www.liberalhistory.org.uk as a resource for students of Liberal history.

The Great Liberal contest was inspired by the BBC’s ‘Great Britons’ exercise in 2002. The criteria
for candidates were that the individual must have been active in the Liberal Party, or its
predecessors (Whigs, Radicals, etc.) or influential on Liberal thinking; they must have been British,
or active in Britain; and they must be dead.

The poll took place in two stages. In July, Journal of Liberal History readers voted from amongst a
long-list of fifteen candidates chosen by the History Group’s executive. Write-in candidates were

encouraged. The fifteen original candidates were: H. H. Asquith, William Beveridge, Violet Bonham
Carter, Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, Richard Cobden, Millicent Garrett Fawcett, Charles
James Fox, David Lloyd George, W. E. Gladstone, Jo Grimond, Roy Jenkins, J. M. Keynes, John
Locke, John Stuart Mill and Lord John Russell.

The full results of the vote from amongst the final four were as follows. The election was conducted
by the alternative vote (a form of proportional representation) in which voters number their
candidates in order of preference. The candidate receiving the smallest number of first-preference
votes is eliminated and their votes transferred to the other candidates according to the second
preference – and so on, until one candidate achieves more than 50 per cent of the vote.

John Stuart Mill (1806–73)

Philosopher, economist, journalist, political writer, social reformer, and, briefly, Liberal MP, John
Stuart Mill is one of the most famous figures in the pantheon of Liberal theorists, and the greatest
of the Victorian Liberal thinkers.

Eldest son of the Scottish utilitarian philosopher James Mill, John Stuart’s works have had far more
lasting interest. In Principles of Political Economy (1848) he voiced his unease concerning the
excessive power and influence of the state; people understood their own business better than
government did. However, he acknowledged a clear role for the state, for example in regulating
natural monopolies.

He is best known for his masterpiece, On Liberty (1859), which emphatically vindicated individual
moral autonomy, and celebrated the importance of originality and dissent. Although generations of
Liberals have used his arguments to oppose state authoritarianism, in fact Mill devoted most of the
work to arguing against middle-class conformism, which stultified opposition and a critical cast of
mind.

In Considerations on Representative Government (1861) Mill expounded his doctrine of
democracy, emphasising the importance of local government. Putting his beliefs into practice, he
served as Liberal MP for Westminster from 1865 to 1868, where he argued for proportional
representation and the extension of suffrage to women householders – a stance he developed in
The Subjection of Women (1869), which remains the only feminist classic written by a man. He
maintained that social reform, rather than repression, was the cure for civil unrest in Ireland, and
argued for the impeachment of the brutal Governor Eyre of Jamaica. Mill’s defence of civil rights
and racial equality helped to lose him his seat in 1868.

Mill’s intellectual achievements were unmatched in Victorian England. His defence of individual
liberty can still set the terms of debate today, for example over freedom of speech. This helps to
explain why On Liberty is the symbol of office of the President of the Liberal Democrats – and,
what is more, the symbol of liberalism itself.

Text of the Lewisham Council report on disabled woman left on bus overnight

Sat, 01 Sep 2007 10:49:00 GMT

1. Background

1.1 The review group was established in August 2006 by the Executive Director of Community Services. The remit of the Review was to investigate and report on the circumstances that led to the failure of service delivery which resulted in a woman with learning difficulties being left overnight on a door2door transport bus in the Wearside Depot on the night of 6th/7th July 2006. Within the context of this report she will be referred to as “A”. The review group was established within the guidelines set out in “Safeguarding Vulnerable Adults within Lewisham” procedures.

1.2 The review was further asked to:
assess any changes in practice subsequent to the events of the 7th July 2006
review the changes to ascertain as far as it is possible that there will be no repetition of such an event
look at the nature of the support services provided.

2. Methodology

The Review group scrutinised the evidence which informed the interim report produced by the managers of door2door and various records of the Day Centre and the AWLD case file. In addition all members of the group visited the Wearside depot and the bus on which A was left overnight. Members of the group also visited A at the Day Centre and her mother at their home.

3. Summary and Findings

3.1 The report of the review begins with an apology to A and her mother Mrs A for the circumstances that led to the failure in services on the 6/7th July 2006 and for the distress that was caused as a result. This apology is made in acknowledgement that there were serious failures of operation reflected in both the actions of individuals and the management systems within the Council, and also in arrangements for the provision of care and support to adults with learning difficulties.

3.2 The review has concluded that the failure on that day was first and foremost, the failure of the door2door transport service to provide an appropriate level of service: both the driver and escort failed to carry out their duties by not completing a systematic check of the bus at the point of return to the Wearside depot. The review group concluded that this single failure of action resulted in A being left on the bus.

3.3 The two members of staff responsible for the service on that day resigned immediately from the employment of the London Borough of Lewisham. Because the authority could not therefore interview these people it was impossible for the review team to gain any independent insight into how A came to be left on the bus. The review team was therefore dependent on the comprehensive evidence collected for the Interim Report and member’s own observations at the depot.

3.4 The review group is supportive of the conclusions drawn in the Interim report that:
“The failure of the door2door service to ensure the safety and well being of A whilst in their care can be attributed to a lack of communication at various levels and a lack of professional care and attention to detail by this vehicle crew”.

3.5 More specifically there was a failure to maintain the usual register of people on the bus because the attendant was in conversation with one of the passengers. It appears that the bus did not take its usual route which would have provided prompts to A about when to rise to get off. Contrary to the service manual, the attendant was seated at the front of the bus rather than towards the back. The driver could not have completed the required visual check of the bus nor did he close the windows and hatches of the bus. All of these factors contributed to the failure to ensure that all users were disembarked from the bus.

3.6 All of these requirements are already contained in the service manuals and job descriptions of the door2door staff. An additional requirement has now been added for drivers to check vehicles parked at either side of them at the end of the day. Monitoring checks have been enhanced. The opinion of the review is that the measures put in place, whilst robust and well monitored, need an additional sign off at the Wearside office before drivers and escorts go off site.

3.7 The second area of concern for the review group was about the support mechanisms and systems in place from day care services and the social work team for adults with learning difficulties (AWLD). These services were considered relevant in the review because of the way they contributed to Mrs A's understanding – or lack of understanding- of service provision and how she could access help and advice. This is a particularly significant aspect of the review as Mrs A’s failure to seek assistance upon the failure of A to return home meant that there were no measures put in place to establish A’s whereabouts over the night 6/7 July.

3.8 The reasons why Mrs A did not seek help on the night of 6/7th of July did not become apparent until a member of the review team visited her in the course of the review. Mrs A reported that she could not conceive of any other reason for her daughter’s failure to return home other than that she was with the Day Centre staff, but she did not know who to contact to check this out. The review concluded that there were areas of concern about the information and advice provided to parents/carers. This is an area where improvement needs to be made.

4 Conclusions

The review concludes:-

4.1 This event should not have happened and should not have been allowed to happen. Had the standard practice required of drivers and escorts been adhered to the incident could not have occurred.

4.2 A formal written apology should have been made immediately to Mrs A, and an apology made to A in a way that is accessible to her.

4.3 The risk of such an incident re-occurring should be constantly reviewed. The transport services must undertake constant routine checks on the conduct of staff and review their performance, additionally to the annual appraisal system already in place.

4.4 Mrs A’s apparent inability to access help on the night in question reflects badly upon the service in as much as Mrs A did not have the information she needed. Mrs A did not seek help because she did not know who to ask: she did not know that the council was responsible for the Day Care support to her daughter.

4.5 The responses of the Lewisham social care services after the event should have been better. It required the personal intervention of the Executive Director to ensure that services came together effectively to put in place appropriate arrangements to follow up this incident appropriately.

4.6 The review group is of the opinion that the AWLD should have immediately taken charge of the event as an Adult Protection investigation. The Team appeared constrained in doing this by a lack of clarity about the relationship with door2door as a provided service commissioned by them, as the Care Management Team.

5 Recommendations

5.1 That the commissioning of the door2door Service is reviewed on a regular basis. In addition that Service Managers liaise with the transport providers and ensure that relevant information is shared and updated as necessary as part of the Care Plan.

5.2 That there should be a system to provide an audit trail to check service users as they move on and off transport, to provide clear hand over responsibilities between the transport service and day care, other service, or home.

5.3 That upon the return to the Depot, the crew will present the checked passenger lists to the office before leaving.

5.4 That the door2door service ensures routine and regular checks on the practice of staff and that the return to the depot in the evening period is monitored as set out in the revised procedures manual.

5.5 That the recommendations contained within the Interim Report prepared by Regeneration are fully carried out and regularly reviewed and monitored as part of the commissioning process.

5.6 That arrangements be put in place to ensure that door2door managers have access to SWIFT for “read only” purposes in the event of an emergency.

5.7 That the AWLD service review its methods of communication with parents and carers and that information is provided to all service users and their families to ensure that there is a point of contact in the event of an emergency.

5.8 That Lewisham Day Centres ensure that a recorded voicemail message for out of hours contact directs callers to the Lewisham Council Emergency contact point.

That the AWLD service reviews its working practices in relation to support given to parents/carers, in particularly those who are becoming elderly. The AWLD service must undertake a review of the needs of elderly carers on a regular basis, ensuring that the annual assessments of the service user incorporates the needs of the carers and that improved relationships are made between service users, carers, the Adult social care team and the day care centres.

5.10 That all parties, door2door, Day centres and the AWLD team, where they have not done so, prepare an Action Plan to address issues arising from this incident and report, for scrutiny by the Interagency Safeguarding Vulnerable Adult Committee on 23rd October 2007.

My questions at Lewisham Council meeting: 25 April 2007

Sun, 29 Apr 2007 12:58:00 GMT

Question
When does the Council intend to repair the pavement on Hither Green Lane
between Duncrievie Road and Beacon Road?

Reply
Major footway works have been prioritised using a detailed ‘scoring’ system
since 2006. This list is updated annually and the new Priority List will be
available in May. A scheme for the section of footway between Duncrievie
Road and Beacon Road has been prepared but will not be issued to the
contractor until it achieves a suitable position on the Priority List and funds are
available.
In the mean time the footway between Elthruda Road and Brightside Road
was reconstructed in November 2006 as part of the Bus Stop Accessibility
Programme, funded by Transport for London. The works involved the raising
of kerbs to facilitate easier bus boarding, modular pre-cast concrete paving
and tactile paving at the approaches to the bus stop to assist visually impaired
bus passengers.

Question
What will be the effect on Lewisham Central ward of the Council’s plans for
the future of the street warden service?

Reply
The Wardens in Lewisham Central Ward have provided a visible presence in
and around the town centre areas of Rushey Green and Lewisham. Particular
emphasis is given to the transport interchanges in both town centres. These
warden teams also carry out patrols to cover a number of estates in the
vicinity including Orchard, Mercator, Milford Towers, Lewisham Park, and
Hither Green. The latter were introduced in response to concerns about
anti-social behaviour.
The Town Centres schemes received particular attention in the service review
conducted in 2005/06. The review, which included independent interviews
with the public and other agencies, found that the police officers and Police
Community Support Officers (PCSOs) were considered to be better placed to
deal with crimes such as shop lifting and incidents of disorder that take place
in the town centres. This reflected the ability of PCSOs to make use of police
powers to detain suspects etc. Wardens were seen as being better placed
and more effective in engaging with residents and in particular, within a
residential setting. Building relationships with residents, helping them to
engage with services and helping to identify gaps in service delivery was
identified as a strength.
The decision to move to the use of PCSO’s in the town centres was taken as
a result of the findings outlined above. The Mayor committed £250,000 in the
2006 budget to provide resources to the Metropolitan Police. This will
purchase an additional 12 PCSOs who will primarily be located in the town
centres.
d:\activepdf\convert\$asqmembers questions - 25 april 2007.doc
The role of the PCSO’s will be to work closely with shoppers and visitors to
the town centres, local businesses, transport providers and other partners.
The aim is to provide an effective and responsive visible presence.
Wardens will continue to provide a limited service within the town centres
mainly, at key times of the day i.e. when schools end so they can enhance the
visible presence.
The patrolling of the non-town centre areas of Lewisham Central, will be
provided by the peripatetic team. They will be made up of wardens patrolling
on cycles and on foot. They will continue to cover the estates detailed above
and respond to emerging concerns in the rest of the borough. This will be
determined through the use of rotas to ensure that there is coverage in all
areas at some point each week.
It is planned that having a rota for the coverage of the remainder of the
borough and publicising details of the coverage to the public, will ensure that
the service is well managed and accountable. It will provide opportunities for
continued warden and public engagement.
.
Question
What discussions has the Council had regarding improving play facilities for
under 5s in Ladywell Fields, and what was their outcome?

Reply
The playground at Ladywell Fields was completely refurbished in 2002 and
includes play equipment suitable for ‘under 5’ usage. Specifically there are 4
cradle swings, 3 rockers and a modular unit which are exclusively intended for
this group. We looked at a proposal to add another modular unit and some
picnic tables to the area adjacent to the café this year as we felt it would
animate the area. It would also prove convenient for the parents of younger
children and help with the sustainability of the café.
We obtained quotes and would need around £14,000 to achieve our aims.
We will continue to look for ways to fund this improvement.

Answers to my questions at Council Meeting 24 January 2006

Sun, 28 Jan 2007 13:21:00 GMT

QUESTION No. 36
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
24 JANUARY 2007

Question by Councillor Milton
of the Cabinet Member for Customer Services

Question
What joined-up action does the Council propose to take - in co- operation with
neighbouring boroughs if necessary - to control the proliferation of small unregulated
hostels and overcrowded private accommodation in the Hither Green area?

Reply
Part 2 of the Housing Act 2004 changed the definition of those houses that now should be
considered to be Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMO) to include all shared houses
occupied by more than two unrelated persons as their only or main residence. This would
exclude those hostels used by tourists but would include Bed and Breakfast
accommodation used to house the homeless as now being HMOs.
At the moment those HMOs that are on three or more storeys and occupied by five or
more people are subject to mandatory licensing, which is being carried out across the
borough by the Private Sector Renewal Unit in the Housing Needs Group.
The new Housing Act 2004 has also introduced new powers relating to any hazards found
as a result of a Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) assessment under
Part 1. One of the 29 hazards which is considered under HHSRS is for crowding and
space.
The Private Sector Renewal Unit uses the HMO Licencing scheme to enforce Lewisham’s
standards for this type of accommodation. This team will also continue to respond to
referrals from private sector tenants about their standard of housing and to carry out
HHSRS assessments and will continue to take enforcement action, in line with the
Councils enforcement policy, to address any hazards found.
d:\activepdf\convert\$asqmembers questions - 24 january 2007.doc
As well as liaising with the fire officers of the LFCDA in relation to standards in relation to
fire precautions in relation to fire hazards found under HHSRS and any conditions relating
to fire precautions required by conditions attached to HMO licences, the team will also
continue to coordinate its efforts to implement the Housing Act 2004 with neighbouring
boroughs through its membership of the South East London Housing Partnership
(SELHP).
The use by local authority homelessness services of private properties in other boroughs
than their own is also being addressed by this Council’s homelessness service through its
membership of SELHP.
The South East London Housing Partnership is between Bexley, Bromley, Greenwich,
Lewisham and Southwark, the five boroughs in Communities & Local Government's
(CLG's, formerly DCLG's) South East London Sub-region.
d:\activepdf\convert\$asqmembers questions - 24 january 2007.doc

QUESTION No. 37
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
24 JANUARY 2007

Question by Councillor Milton
of the Mayor
Question
What are the challenges and opportunities for the London Borough of Lewisham in the
Government's White Paper on local government? How might it facilitate:
a) the setting up of parish councils in Lewisham; and
b) the replacement of a directly elected Mayor by a directly elected Executive?
Does it entirely rule out returning to the system prior to the establishment of a directly
elected Mayor in Lewisham?

Reply
There are provisions in the Local Government and Public Involvement in Health Bill
enabling principal Councils, including London Boroughs, to create parishes following a
community governance review.
The Bill contains provisions which must be followed (if enacted) in the conduct of such a
review. It is clear that Councils before deciding to create a parish must consider, among
other things, the effect on community cohesion.
The Bill, if enacted, will allow Councils to adopt one of three models of political
governance:
• directly elected Mayor and Cabinet (as now);
• elected executive (where a “slate” of leader and executive members are directly
elected);
• Leader and Cabinet executive (where the leader holds office for four years).
It will not be possible to organise the Council’s political governance other than in
accordance with the models permitted by the new legislation.

QUESTION No. 38
LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM
COUNCIL MEETING
24 JANUARY 2007

Question by Councillor Milton
of the Cabinet Member for Community Services
Question
Does the Mayor's decision on the development of Loampit Vale preclude further
discussions with swimmers and other stakeholders on improving on the 25m pool
proposed, particularly if this could be done without significant cost to the London Borough
of Lewisham?

Reply
I understand that at the end of January 2007, four companies are to be issued with an
'Invitation To Negotiate' for the Loampit Vale development. They will have until 27 April to
prepare their designs and formal submissions. The Invitation To Negotiate includes a
detailed specification for the Leisure facility, which includes a 25 metre pool as reported to
Mayor and Cabinet on 10 January, 2007.
Officers anticipate that the successful developer will be selected during July 2007. A
detailed design will then follow in accordance with the specification. There will be the
opportunity for stakeholder involvement in this design.

my speech at Lewisham Council praising the Save Ladywell Pool campaign

Sat, 25 Nov 2006 17:55:00 GMT

OK, this is a bit of vanity publishing. These are the notes of the speech which I more or less made at Lewisham Council praising the Save Ladywell Pool campaign for doing what it said on the tin. I didn't quite make all of it, as I ran out of time.

Cllr Morris has said everything that needs to be said, but I have nevertheless got at least 5 mins to fill.

Paradox, one person put the pool in danger of closure, and the same person rescued it.

Only logical answer is that they are two different persons, inhabiting the same body.
Theological circles known as Consubstantiation.

Notorious "Mayor Saves Ladywell Pool" leaflet. How much trouble and strife a single leaflet
not delivered in Grove Park can cause.

But it all becomes clear if the Good, Infallible Mayor is a totally different person from Bad Steve Bullock.

Bad Steve Bullock spends his nights dreaming of schemes to cause as much damage, annoy as many people, and lose as many
Ladywell Labour councillors as possible.

The Good Mayor goes around sweeping up the damage caused by Steve Bullock, and in one bound saves endangered pools from certain death.

And it is this Good Mayor that I would like to praise, for being right all along. Because it does take a great deal of what
Sir Humphrey called courage to change Steve Bullock's course despite the public ridicule which it has aroused. The Mayor does have the security
blanket of new information about the Lewisham Bridge, yet being omniscient knew all along that it was a daft idea to knock down Ladywell Pool.

I don't want to gloat. But I do have 2 [quote exact time] minutes to fill.

For me, the story came round full circle, from Cabinet meeting to Cabinet meeting. The first Cabinet meeting, when the decision
was made. When I told Steve Bullock that I'd been knocking on doors in my ward. And everyone said it was a daft idea. But STeve Bullock
and the Cabinet ignored my good advice. Not known as Cassandra of the Liberal Democrats for nothing.

The contrast between that and the meeting when the Mayor made the decision to save the pool was amazing. Nice friendly cabinet
actually listening to what I was saying. And the Good Mayor made the right decision, for all the right reasons, with only the slightest hint
of condescension.

What made the difference? Two words come to mind. But the polite ones are Max Calo.

Going to accept the Socialist amendment, but with lips but half regretful. True, change does come about as a result of mass movements,
as in the socialist view of history. And I accept that a lot of people were involved in the campaign, and they all did very well.
But there is perhaps something in the old Whig view of history which sees remarkable individuals as having a contribution too.

As an example, I give you Massimiliano Calo.

Arguably the best Italian artist to meddle in British politics since the Emperor Nero.

And like the Emperor Nero, Massimiliano used all the arts in the pursuance of his political objectives. Drama, pantomine, graphic design, drawing, rhetoric, the Internet, photography.

But unlike the Emperor Nero he didn't sing. Wisely left that to his wife Brenda. Most of all, Max shared the ability of the Emperor Nero, and incidentally Steve Bullock, to inspire and unite a disparate mass of widely divergent people in a united cause. In this case, with him, rather than against him.

It was the secret of the pool campaigns success. It was Max's challenging indefatigability, his charm, his imagination, his total irrationality which was why this campaign succeeded when others would have given up long again. But there was a hidden political skill too. Bringing together a group disparate politicos, and rabid anti-politicos into one campaign, and not allowing any one group to dominate and take all the credit. It took some doing. A lesson for us all. Perhaps.

And all done in what to Max was a second language. I wonder how many of us could organise a Save Trieste Pool if we had the misfortune to be plucked from Lewisham and made to live there.

But that's enough about Max.

But as he says himself, the real hero of the campaign and the source of its inspiration was the Mayor who saw a swimming pool in need of saving, and stepped right in.

Thank you Mr Mayor for this excellent decision.

Steve Bullock may be dead. But long live the Mayor. Whoever he may be.

my questions at Full Council: 20 September 2006

Sat, 23 Sep 2006 15:39:00 GMT

QUESTION No. 43

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

20 SEPTEMBER 2006

Question by Councillor Milton
of the Deputy Mayor

Question

What steps will the Mayor take to ensure that the £50,000 spent on the Hither
Green Urban Development Strategy is not wasted?

Reply

A report on the Hither Green Urban Design and Development Framework is to
go to Mayor and Cabinet on 18 October 2006. In addition to explaining the
background to the Framework and its details it will set out the steps being put
in place to implement it.

The report will note that while the Framework is not intended to provide a firm
programme of projects with associated financial commitments from the
Council, it does provide a list of potential projects which could be implemented
by a range of agencies such as the Council, the local community or the
private sector, either individually or in partnership.

In addition to feeding projects into mainstream Council programmes, the
framework will act as a bidding document for a local management committee,
facilitated by the Pilot Locality Fund, to seek external funding. A new town
centre manager has recently been appointed to cover five local centres
across the borough, and one of these is Hither Green. Development sites
identified by the Framework are being incorporated into the Site Allocations
document in the Local Development Framework and when redeveloped
should generate s.106 funding to benefit the local area.

Having provided the basis to regenerate Hither Green, it is therefore
considered that the money spent on the Framework has been put to good
use.

c:\documents and settings\hornsbyp\desktop\full_cncl_membs_ques_20sept06.doc

QUESTION No. 44

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

20 SEPTEMBER 2006

Question by Councillor Milton
of the Deputy Mayor

Question

At a recent meeting of the Mountsfield Park User Group, police advised that
one cost-effective way of reducing anti social behaviour would be the
installation of public toilets so that the park would no longer be a place where
law abiding members of the public would be inconvenienced if they chose to
stay for any length of time. Will Lewisham Council follow this good advice?

Reply

The Council is in the process of submitting a stage one application to the
Heritage Lottery fund to restore and regenerate the whole of Mountsfield Park.
This will include new provision for public toilets, sports changing facilities and
possible a park café. The lottery bidding process can take up to two years.
Preliminary work funded by a Heritage Project Planning Grant, has been
completed and work is in progress to submit the stage one bid this autumn.

In the mean time, and recognising the concern about the lack of public toilets,
the Council is looking into the possibility of providing a temporary facility.
However, resources (both capital for installation and revenue for on-going
maintenance) are limited.
c:\documents and settings\hornsbyp\desktop\full_cncl_membs_ques_20sept06.doc

QUESTION No. 45

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

20 SEPTEMBER 2006

Question by Councillor Milton
of the Deputy Mayor

Question

Why, in the words of one local resident, has the Council 'reneged' on its
commitment to consult local residents on the principle of extending the
experimental traffic management scheme along Albion Way and Clarendon
Rise?

Reply

The Lewisham High Street bus lane scheme has been at its experimental
stage. It is a legal technicality that the scheme has been made permanent
and does not preclude future amendments. The fact that it has been made
permanent does not change our intention to consult on any amendments to
the scheme.

Prior to the implementation of the scheme the Council consulted with local
residents through a public meeting held on the 4th March 2005. This meeting
was well attended by residents, some of whom thought that the scheme
would not work as either traffic would still use the high street or be diverted
down their roads. If this proved to be the case it was proposed that the
experiment may be removed or mitigation works be carried out to
neighbouring residential roads . After the scheme was implemented a further
consultation took place on the 7th December 2005. This meeting was
attended by less than ten residents and the indication was that the scheme
was working and some mitigation works may be required to residential roads.
Additionally Council Officers have met with residents representatives at two
evening meetings to discuss the impact of the scheme.

By law, it is not permitted to alter an experiment by addition because by its
nature the experiment is a 'fixed' element that is to be monitored. Consultation
will be carried out shortly on any variations to the scheme now the experiment
has been made permanent.

c:\documents and settings\hornsbyp\desktop\full_cncl_membs_ques_20sept06.doc
The main objective of the scheme was to lessen the amount of 'through' traffic
in the High Street whilst limiting the scheme's effect in adjacent roads. It was
hoped that this would have a positive effect on congestion thereby assisting
bus reliability and it was also hoped that this would result in improved safety
in the High Street.

The existing scheme has been monitored and the traffic figures show that the
outcome overall is favourable. In the 3 years before the scheme was
implemented there were a total of 37 injury accidents, i.e. 12.3 per year,
reported by the police in Lewis Grove and Lewisham High Street between the
junctions with Lee High Road and Molesworth Street. In the year since
implementation there have been 4 reported. There have been no increase of
accidents in Lee High Road at its junctions with Clarendon Rise or Eastdown
Park. Although it is too early to take as a trend, it is a very encouraging start.

People will be given the chance to give views and make suggestions via a
consultation leaflet and questionnaire. This leaflet will include a proposal to
traffic calm Albion Way, Clarendon Rise, north of Bounfield Road and
Bounfield Road. The consultation process will also include liaison with other
agencies. Following this process a meeting will be arranged with the
residents group to discuss any proposals.

Healhcare speech (not delivered)

Sat, 23 Sep 2006 15:09:00 GMT

This is the speech that I would have made at Lewisham Council on 20 September. But the Labour Party cut it short by agreeing to accept my amendment. So I though I would inflict it on the Internet instead (OK, so it's vanity publishing!):

Very happy to support the motion. Important to give praise where it is due. Esp the work of the staff themselves, many of whom live in Lewisham Central ward, who have ensured an excellent rating for services for overall children's care, despite the very many frustrations of working in today's health service.

There is still such a thing as a public service ethos in the UK, despite the efforts of some to belittle, denigrate and marginalise it.

Hope too that the main motion will restore rather better relations between Lewisham hospital and the scrutiny committee than was evident during the May election campaign.

Role of the scrutiny committee is to be a critical friend and a partner of the health service in Lewisham. Not a sycophant, in either the metaphorical or literal meaning of the word.

The amendment is moved in the spirit of good old fashioned medicine. To restore the balance of the humours. Not, like the main motion perhaps, too sanguine, but not too choleric, nor phlegmatic, nor melancholic neither. In particular, not too much yellow bile. But it seeks to achieve a perfect balance of all those elements, best conducive to the good health of the scrutiny process, to correct the excessive quantity of blood which seems to have rushed to the head of the movers. The amendment simply applies some leeches to reduce the excessive swelling in the main motion. A corrective to too much sanguinity.

For all is not well with health care in Lewisham. And that needs to be said too. And it needs to be put right.
In particular, I don't think anyone in this Chamber can be happy about the recent media reports of the state of general practice in London in general and Lewisham in particular.

A recent survey by the GP magazine Pulse found that 1,092 premises out of more than 7,000 across the UK were below minimum standards. London was by far the worst affected area in the UK, with 522 premises deemed unfit by the capital's 31 primary care trusts.

Almost all the premises in Lewisham were below minimum standards.

Even allowing for some special pleading by the medical profession these make grim headlines.
And so do the morbidity rates in Lewisham where it seems the only place which is healthier than the national average is Forest Hill ward. Draw the obvious conclusions.

Nor can any of us be unconcerned by the financial difficulties facing health trusts in Lewisham and across London. Only yesterday, Cllr Scott and I received an e-mail from our counterparts in the scrutiny committee at Hounslow pointing out the dire financial straits they are in over there, and seeking support.

I mention these issues not with any sense of gloating, but to point out that there are shadows on the X-ray of health in Lewisham, and London as a whole.

The shadows need to be examined and cured, and not denied. And that requires calm, rational, and co-operative examination of the facts, and addressing the issues holistically, not in isolation, nor in denial. This is why the amendment looks forward to the publication of the annual health check performance ratings for NHS trusts will be published by the Healthcare Commission on 12 October, which will hopefully show how we are performing in Lewisham as a whole, not just the bits which make the good headlines, and will add to the body of knowledge which we all need to work together to help make Lewisham a healthier place.

If you are prepared to work co-operatively to tackle these problems, as well as celebrating successes, then please vote for the amendment.

New Schools in Lewisham

Tue, 24 Jan 2006 16:34:00 GMT

Here is a letter which Mary Paul (New School Campaign) has sent to Lewisham councillors on problems with the plans for secondary schools in Lewisham:

Dear Councillor

Following last week’s Mayor & Cabinet meeting which ratified the Strategic Business Case (SBC) for the Lewisham BSF project a motion has been tabled for the next Council Meeting by Cllr Donelly which invites the Council to commend the project team on the achievement of the SBC milestone.

The purpose of this letter is to alert you to an alternative view of what has so far been achieved by the BSF project, to correct a number of misunderstandings that have grown up about the scope of the project and suggest that elected members should take a far more critical role in questioning key decisions made on their behalf to ensure that the BSF project delivers both value for money and the key objectives of improved school environments for both your current constituents and future generations. In so doing could I stress that while sharing and applauding the project’s key objectives, having shadowed the projects’ progress over the past 2 years I have serious reservations about the ability of the team to deliver a fit for purpose outcome or to manage the financial risks that the project will import to the Council budget.

The project team principally comprises resources, including the LBL Project Manager, procured from MACE Consultancy. Since work started numerous timelines and cost estimates associated with the various project options have been produced, invariably successive time estimates show significant slippage from one iteration to the next, suggesting that the team do not yet have a firm grasp of the project outputs or delivery risks. For example if one compares the BSF report to Council in June 2005 with the latest BSF report (see the table at the end of this letter) it is apparent that in 7 months most project time lines have extended by 1-2 years! The project team will no doubt explain that the scope and phasing of the project has changed during this period requiring the timeline to be amended, but what comfort can they offer that the project is now any less volatile? For the reasons I develop below I would suggest that the project remains very unstable.

Looking deeper into the BSF document submitted to Mayor & Cabinet on 11th January reveals that a significant number of issues remain unresolved with the attendant risk to the ultimate project success. These include significant areas of planning risk in 4 of the schools.

For Sedgehill, Bonus Pastor and the new school at Ladywell, planning consents will be required not only from LBL Planning Department but also from the GLA and GOL. The planning request for Sedgehill was only submitted to LBL Planning Department at the end of December. To expect to get the whole process complete including GLA and GOL consultations by May as the report describes is optimistic to say the least. As far as LBL Planning Department is concerned the BSF project team have already noted at their planning meeting on 11th July 2005 that:

The Planning Department was the guardian of the open spaces as defined in the UDP and had long resisted pressure from directorates to use parcels for redevelopment. Despite the pressure brought to bear and the ‘worthiness’ of the arguments and potential developments Planning had held firm. Any proposals by LBL Education may be met with the same stance

These planning issues surrounding the Sedgehill project should have been resolved some time ago. At the BSF Project Board meeting on 16th June the Project Director at Partnership for Schools, Harry Scarff had the following to say:

Harry Scarff (HS) stated that the Sedgehill planning and land ownership issues must be resolved before the ITN goes to market. HS related discussions with two potential bidders who had decided not to attempt to pre-qualify in at PQQ. HS also related to the board discussions with a number of bidders who have pre-qualified but who have confirmed that they will not consider the project as “bankable” until these issues are dealt with. The board accepted that this was something they would be concerned about, and showed concern that this issue should be resolved before the ITN went to market.

Despite this it now seems that the project team are recommending advancing to the Invitation to Negotiate (ITN) stage before these planning issues are sorted out. I would suggest that elected members should be questioning why the planning issues have not yet been resolved and why it is therefore necessary for the Council to now shoulder the additional financial risk to reimburse bidders costs in the event of planning not being obtained in the recklessly optimistic time window that the SBC programme now allows. The Mayor & Cabinet agreed on 11th January to indemnify each of the three bidders by up to £750,000 each, should the council fail to secure outline planning permission for Sedgehill and Catford schools. If, as the report suggests, they can achieve outline planning permissions by May, then why not wait and issue the ITN in May, rather than March as planned and thus mitigate some of the risk? Considering that the project has lost so much time anyway, 2 months cannot make such a difference if it provides the project with a firmer base and reduces risk.

It should be noted that the risk profile that the programme and planning problems creates has been considered sufficiently significant to put off several of the original potential bidders. This brings a doubly whammy of financial risk to the council in that the tender list has been prematurely constrained with the loss of effective market testing at the earlier stage and due to the preferred bidder list now only comprising those bidders who presumably feel they can submit prices that include a considerable risk premium. The ability to deliver value for money in such a scenario appears severely constrained.

In addition the plan for the rebuild at Sedgehill has required LBL to make an offer of £750,000 for a piece of land owned by the Lewisham Association of People with Disabilities. This is an additional project cost.

The example of Northbrook School demonstrates the projects team’s lack of foresight and inability to link timescales and cost elements. Since 1999 there has been the intention to expand Northbrook. In October and November last year a public consultation was conducted on the expansion plans. In the report for 11th January it is stated that the expansion will now not take place because of ‘changed circumstances and affordability issues’.

It is interesting to note that the late change in the Northbrook School proposals illustrates that the BSF rules do in fact allow changes in the project scope. The Partnership for Schools (PfS) funding body have confirmed that, contrary to Cllr Donelly’s statement at the M&C meeting on Date 11th January, a change in project content will be considered by them. I would like to suggest that members should not be hoodwinked by arguments put forward by Cllr Donelly that individual elements of the project cannot be altered without jeopardizing the whole.

It would be foolish of Councillors to feel that they should not get involved with the ongoing decisions that the project will continue to face for fear of ‘over turning the applecart’. The ultimate success of the project will depend on the correct decisions being taken from now which should include the scrutiny of all investment decisions taken thus far. I would urge Councillors to include within this review the deeply unpopular decision to site the much needed new school not in the North of the Borough, where the need is greatest, but on the site of the popular and heavily used Ladywell Leisure Centre (a site that is both too small, in the wrong part of the borough and too close to other secondary schools which it may destabilise). You will be failing your constituents if you fail to review this decision.

You may be interested to know that my concerns with the abilities of Mace, that the examples above illustrate, is also shared by Partnership for Schools (PfS). On 22 June 2005 Harry Scarff, Project Director for Partnership for Schools expressed his concerns over Mace in an email to Tony Freeman:

I have made the point before to Frankie that I have concerns over the capacity of MACE to deliver the TA role on this programme.

They also critise the lack engagement of LBL officers involved in the project team. I trust you agree that the Council members have a role in ensuring that this project, which will fundamentally change the shape of education in the Borough for generations to come, must be adequately resourced. It is simply not good enough to devolve decision making to consultants who at the end of the day will be paid their fee what ever the outcome and for however long a project takes to deliver.

Perhaps Councillors should consider whether rather than supporting Cllr Donelly’s smug self congratulatory motion, whether they would be better serving their constituents by instead reminding the project team that their performance to date has been far from the ‘gold standard’ that their fees would seem to justify and that elected members will in future be taking a more active role in scrutinizing their output.

Yours sincerely

Mary Paul
New School Campaign

The Longest Journey: undelivered speech on civil partnerships

Sun, 18 Dec 2005 07:36:00 GMT

Unaccustomed as I am to praising the Mayor in public, I would like to congratulate him on what Sir Humphrey Appleby would call yet another imaginative and courageous decision by proclaiming his commitment to this particular aspect of the equality agenda.

Will read an extract from a Guardian article a week or so ago, which sums it up.

"Britain has done something that is both progressive and well in advance of almost everywhere else. Men and women who happen to love someone of the same gender will finally be able to live together as a couple with all the legal benefits and responsibilities that marriage has always conferred. After a fortnight's wait, the first partnerships will be formally registered on December 21, just in time for Christmas.

What is impressive about all this is not just that few other countries have passed a law as good as Britain's - German, New Zealand and American couples in this country will find they have clearer rights here than they do at home - but that alone in the world Britain seems to have done it with a minimum of fuss. Civil partnerships are one of those rare instances where almost everyone has behaved well. The government fulfiled its manifesto promise to introduce a bill and did so without fudging the matter: what they offered was identical to marriage in all but name. The opposition did not obstruct the bill, despite (or perhaps as a delayed apology for) Michael Howard's grim role in introducing section 28 as a junior minister. Indeed Mr Howard put the party's only openly gay frontbencher, Alan Duncan, in charge, and he gave a moving Commons speech. The House of Lords caused less trouble than might have been expected and the tabloid press seem to have embraced the law as a cheerful new source of gossip and not something to be horrified about. Finally, gay rights groups have not made the mistake of demanding that the partnerships be called marriage."

So that's OK then.

A nice cosy consensus. My instinct when I see a consensus is to cuddle up to it. Good to see this Government take a break from its War on Liberalism and do something genuinely progressive, one last time.

How very different from when I was starting in politics in the 70s.

When an unwise kiss of love was a political kiss of death.

In the mid 70s, I was a member of both the Oxford University Labour Club, and the Oxford University Conservative Association. I used to swing both ways in those days. Both clubs were full of budding politicians so far back in the closet they were in Narnia. How they have progressed since then: outed one way or another. Moved from closet to Cabinet. One of them is even in Europe, in charge of trade. Which is certainly a sign of the times. As indeed is the Civil Partnership Act itself. Spring has come, and the wicked Snow Queens of Bromley can't bring the ice age back. A new dawn for Narnia?

At least, I hope so.

The romantic in me would like to wish every happiness to gay couples, especially those who spend as much money as possible in Lewisham getting hitched. Hope the Civic Suite is putting an appropriate mark-up on pink champagne.

The cynic in me, however, is coming out. Remembering the poem by Shelley.

I never was attached to that great sect, 
Whose doctrine is, that each one should select 
Out of the crowd a mistress or a friend, 
And all the rest, though fair and wise, commend 
To cold oblivion, though it is in the code 
Of modern morals, and the beaten road 
Which those poor slaves with weary footsteps tread, 
Who travel to their home among the dead 
By the broad highway of the world, and so 
With one chained friend, —perhaps a jealous foe, 
The dreariest and the longest journey go.

[from Epipsychidon 1820]

Wouldn't advise that as the homily on monogamy for the Mayor to use in the partnership celebrations.

I hope not too many civil partnerships finish in uncivil separations at the end of The Longest Journey.

And if they do, is there some way of the Council making money out of those too?

Please Mr Mayor!

Wed, 19 Jan 2005 10:07:00 GMT

Issues which I suggested might be raised when the Mayor of Lewisham visits Lewisham Central on 3 February. Any more bids?

Crime and fear of crime (throughout the ward).

Provision for young people (perhaps the Young Mayor might like to attend too!). Especially in school holidays; no free sports facilities; very limited youth clubs

Transport and traffic: problems with the 'school run'; traffic calming plans being implemented too slowly; not enough 20 mph zones especially round schools. Traffic management scheme in Lewisham Town Centre: concern about possible increase of traffic along Clarendon Rise and Albion Way. Parking issues throughout the ward, including current consultation on the CPZ extension in Hither Green, and the difficulties in parking for people with disabilities and for local businesses in Lewisham Town Centre.

Pedestrian safety, everywhere and especially in Lewisham Town Centre. Possible schemes to keep traffic speed down, such as Home Zones where pedestrians and cyclists take precedence.

Overcrowding on and unreliability of the 181 bus route (not really the responsibility of this Mayor, but perhaps he could raise it with the other one!).

Physical appearance of the area. Too much rubbish; messy and cluttered street furniture; graffiti not removed fast enough. Fly tipping throughout the ward- e.g. has the council done any research about whether it
would be cheaper to reinstate the free collection service than to run round the borough playing catch-up with
the dumpers all the time?

Untidy front gardens. Could there be some kind of publicity drive to encourage people to keep their front gardens tidy? (perhaps I should declare an interest on this item!)

Recycling - Why can't the council collect plastics in the green boxes? Can Lewisham Central residents have a "proper green waste collection service with a proper bin - not one where the council charges for the bags".

Housing. Including using CPO's to buy empty private properties.

Lack of public toilets (passim).

I somehow suspect that the closure of Ladywell Leisure Centre will be raised, and the standard of maintenance and anti-social behaviour on Council estates in Lewisham Central ward, in particular the Mercator Estate.

Questions At Full Council: 15 December

Thu, 16 Dec 2004 07:25:00 GMT

Here are the questions I asked at Wednesday's Full Council meeting, and the answers. [My comments in square brackets]

Question by Councillor Milton
of the Cabinet Member for Environment

Question

The air quality around the centre of Lewisham, particularly where it adjoins Lee High Road, seems to be very poor. What information is available about the quality of the air at this location? If there is no information available, could arrangements be made to collect it.

Reply

The Council is required by the Government to review and assess air quality in Lewisham against specific air quality objectives. A 'review and assessment' of air quality has been completed and findings are published in a document entitled 'Updating and Screening Assessment' (USA).

The USA report contains a considerable amount of research, modelling and analysis of air quality across Lewisham and provides an assessment of each of the seven key pollutants, which are Carbon monoxide, Benzene, 1-3, Butadiene, Lead, Nitrogen Dioxide, Sulphur Dioxide and Particulates.

For each pollutant, the report explores the sources of pollution and whether current levels in the Borough exceeded the Air Quality Objectives. The two pollutants of concern in Lewisham are Nitrogen dioxide and Particulates. The report clearly shows that the centre of Lewisham and in particular, Lee High Road, has wide- ranging exceedences mainly due to road transport.

In December 2003 the Draft Air Quality Action Plan was published. The plan sets out a number of actions that the Council proposes to take to improve air quality throughout the Borough.

In addition, the report also has a chapter on air quality monitoring currently being carried in the Borough. There are currently two real-time air quality monitoring sites, one located in Catford and the other in New Cross. This information is supplemented by information collected by other London boroughs through a network of monitoring stations. The results for all of the monitoring stations can be seen on the ERG website: www.londonair.org.uk

When assessing air quality data is considered over a long time frame. Any readings obtained from an air quality monitoring site should be subjected to a detailed quality assurance processes. Therefore, data collected in one year will not be 'ratified' or accurate until some time afterwards, usually the following year.

[I asked a supplementary question on whether it would be possible to install temporary monitoring equipment on Lee High Road to determine whether the pollution problem there was getting worse or better. Andrew Brown said he would ensure that officers would get back to me on this. Darren Johnson, the Green supremo and member of the Greater London Assembly (GLA) who sits next to me on Lewisham Council, said he would ask the same question of Transport for London at the GLA.]

Question by Councillor Milton
of the Cabinet Member for Regeneration

Question

In relation to the area covered by the Central Lewisham Housing Panel:

- what assistance has been provided by the Council to tenants and leaseholders to explore the three options to meet the Decent Homes Standard, and what additional assistance, if any, will be given;

- have any concerns been raised about the quality of that assistance;

- what are the next steps in the process, what timetable is the Council working to, and what is the risk that the timetable will not be met;

- is it the case that at this stage the only option, which could now realistically be put to tenants and leaseholders in this area, is a Stock Transfer?

- in the event that a Stock Transfer is proposed, what influence would tenants and leaseholders have over the choice of a Registered Social Landlord?

Reply

The Council has drawn up comprehensive Communication and Tenant Empowerment Strategies to ensure that all tenants and leaseholders are kept fully informed and involved in the process of achieving the decent homes standard by 2010. These Strategies have both been “signed off” as satisfactory by the Government Office for London.

Implementation of these strategies has involved:

• Establishment of an Option Appraisal Steering Group which includes five residents representatives from the Tenants Strategy Group and three representatives from the Housing Panels to ensure active involvement of Lewisham’s diverse communities. The main role of this group is to make recommendations on the option or mix of options which will best deliver the decent homes standard.
• A Decent Homes Roadshow toured the Borough during August and September (and was twice located in Lewisham Central). The purpose of this Roadshow was to provide information on Decent Homes and to gauge tenants’ aspirations with regard to the standard we should be aiming for.
• 2 Show Flats have been opened on Sundermead to provide residents with an opportunity to look at a flat refurbished to meet the Government’s minimum Decent Homes standard and a possible Lewisham standard. All visitors to these showflats have been invited to provide feedback on what they consider to be key improvements.
• The Tenants Strategy Group, Area Housing Panels and individual tenants and residents associations have all received briefings.
• 2 Citizens Panels have been specifically been held to test the effectiveness of the communication methods employed so far.
• A telephone survey was held during October/ November which involved 1485 tenants being surveyed to ascertain views on current priorities for repairing and improving homes in the borough and to establish the level of understanding of information provided by the Council relating to the future housing options to meet the Decent Homes Standard.
• RSL information sessions were run on the 7th and 8th December to allow residents the chance to meet staff and residents from a range of housing associations to find out more about these organisations.
• Home from Home – a number of officers supported by the Mayor and resident representatives have been touring round the borough (including 2 four hour slots in Lewisham Town Centre) setting up a place to drop in, have a cup of tea and a discussion about Decent Homes.
• A freephone number was set up in January to enable residents to contact the Independent Tenant Advisor to obtain independent advice and answers to their questions. This number has been widely publicised in Decent Homes communication material, press ads and 5000 give away fridge magnets.
• A series of information leaflets have been mailed to every tenant and leaseholder in the Borough. The last two of these leaflets included specific information on the three investment vehicles

A number of comments and suggestions in relation to communication and consultation have been made by tenants, leaseholders and other stakeholders. Where possible these suggestions have been taken on board.

The next steps in the process are detailed in the Housing Stock Option Appraisal – Overarching Strategy report to the meeting of the Full Council on the 15th December. In brief these steps are to submit an overarching strategy to allow transfer and PFI applications to be made on the 28th January 2005 and to then submit the Council’s Full Stock Option Appraisal in time to obtain sign off by July 2005. It is anticipated that all necessary timescales will be met.

It is not the case that at this stage the only option for tenants and leaseholders in Central Lewisham is a Stock Transfer. If however a Stock Transfer was proposed for this area a ballot would have to take place and a majority of tenants casting votes be in favour of the proposed transfer.

Should a decisive ballot take place tenants and leaseholders would be fully involved in the selection of a Registered Social Landlord.

[I asked a supplementary question pointing out that some tenants and leaseholder in Central Lewisham were worried that the timetable was now becoming very tight for those areas where a particular solution hadn't been identified, and that they might be losing out on the oppportunity to influence what happened. Gavin Moore assured me that this was not the case].

Question by Councillor Milton
of the Cabinet Member for Regeneration

Question

What action will be taken on the recent report submitted to Pat Hayes and others detailing the concerns of the Mercator Community Association about the quality of work undertaken by the contractor responsible for the works on 1-20 Mercator Road?

Reply

The works on 1-20 Mercator Road are not yet complete and the final inspection is yet to be carried out.

A request has been made to the Mercator Community Association (MCA) for the names and addresses of all residents who are dissatisfied and who claim to have work still outstanding. Once these details have been received these residents will be written to and a meeting arranged to try and resolve any problems and make sure all snagging items are completed.

The Contractor will be given the opportunity to respond to the serious allegations around the quality of the workmanship and their approach to Customer Care.

Councillor David Britton also asked about consultation on closing the Ladywell Leisure Centre:

Question

What plans are there for a public consultation over the intended early closing of the Ladywell Leisure Centre in order to permit its development into the proposed new Secondary School?

Reply

The decision to relocate Ladywell Leisure Centre to the Sundermead estate was taken following a public consultation in late 1999. The consultation meeting was well attended, with strong support for relocation and modernisation of the facilities. The choice of Sundermead recognised the importance of having a flagship centre close to the transport interchange and as an integral part of the town centre development.

In December 2002 and January 2003 the Council undertook a detailed consultation exercise on proposals for a new secondary school including the options for the preferred location. Three sites were identified, the Ladywell Playtower site, the Lewisham College Breakspear site and Ladywell Leisure Centre.

Discussion of the preferred location was an important part of the consultation exercise. In February 2003, Mayor & Cabinet considered the outcome of the consultation process and concluded that the preferred location for the school would be the Ladywell Playtower site.

In the event the Council was not able to acquire the police station and in June 2004 the Mayor & Cabinet reconsidered the position, including the consultation previously undertaken and concluded that the preferred location should be the Ladywell Leisure Centre from 2007. By then the new Downham Lifestyles Centre will be open providing alternative high quality leisure facilities to Ladywell.

The health and wellbeing of the people of Lewisham will still be well provided for with a better facility available in Downham before Ladywell closes and plans will be well advanced for the replacement centre in the Town Centre.

[He had to ask a supplementary to get an answer to his actual question, which was no consultation because the decision had already been made].

And here's the question from Cllr Muldoon about open source software.

Will the forthcoming best value review of the IT function have due regard to the potential benefits of using open source software?

Reply

The scope of the BVR for ICT and Customer Services does not include a re-apparaisal of the Council's technical infrastructure. The ICT BVR is focussed on how we approach and package the procurement of IT and telecommunications services.

Officers felt that open source should not feature as a strategic component of our technical framework as this had been discussed in the past and rejected. This will not, however, preclude the informed adoption of open source software on a tactical basis for selected departmental applications, as long as such software was compatible with the new operating systems and enterprise applications to which the Council is committed.

[Cllr Muldoon did, however, get support in the Council Chamber from the cross-party Anti-Microsoft Alliance].

ODPM survey on blogging

Thu, 16 Dec 2004 06:28:00 GMT

I thought I'd publish my answers to an ODPM survey on my blogging habits. After all, there isn't already enough spam on the Internet.

1. Why did you set up your blog?
I initially starting blogging following the example of a friend in Sheffield. I was not a councillor at the time, and had recently moved from Sheffield to London, so used it to keep family in New Zealand and friends across the World and Sheffield in touch with what I was doing. When I was selected as a candidate in a Council by-election, I was advised to destroy the blog, which I did. But after I was elected, I started again, and it combines my political life with all the personal stuff that's fit to print.

2. Did you set it up before or after your councillor.info site?
Before.

3. How often do you update your blog?
On average, I would say about three or four times a week, except when I'm out of the country.

4. What support, if any, have you received from council officers on your blog?
None. But then I haven't asked for it, nor would it be really appropriate.

5. What do you think is the main purpose of your blog? E.g. informing the community about the council’s work / political comment / campaigning / maintaining a visible public presence
These are all part of the purpose of the blog, but as I mentioned above, it has a personal purpose as well. I would also say there's a certain amount of vanity publishing involved.

6. How does this differ from your councillor.info site?

The blog isn't bound by the councillor.info site rules on political neutrality and not being used for campaigning. I tend to use councillor.info to keep constituents informed of what I'm up to and matters which might be of interest to them, in a non-partisan way.

7. Has having a blog made any difference to the way your approach your work as a councillor? In what way? Is this more or less pronounced than the impact of your councillor.info site?

I would like to say not, but I think it might make me more conscientious in attending meetings and doing things, so that I have something to say on the blog. I also find blogging a useful way of communicating with my constituents and some Labour councillors. It has more impact than the councillor.info site because I am freer to write what I think.

8. What has been the reaction of other councillors that you have a blog?

I think other councillors who blog, reqardless of political party, are mutually supportive and encouraging. I haven't had any direct criticism from other councillors, but I do worry that councillors in my own party worry that I might write something out of turn. And that councillors in other parties might worry that I won't.

9. Do you expect that more of your council colleagues will be setting up blogs in the near future?

I would like to think that they would, but I suspect they might think it risky. As, indeed, it is.

10. What is your opinion of the government’s policies on e-democracy?

As a loyal civil servant in my day job, it is not really my place to comment on Government policy, except when it really, really annoys me enough to risk being sacked.

11. To what extent is it right that the government has a policy on local e-democracy? Or should this be left to local councils and councillors?

No problem at all with Government having a policy to promote e-democracy, provided this allows local government to do its own thing too.

12. Could you recommend any other blogging councillors I should contact?

Yes. Andrew Brown and Dave Bodimeade. May God forgive me!

Answers to questions at Lewisham Council

Sun, 21 Nov 2004 10:06:00 GMT

Here are the answers to the question which I asked at the last full meeting of Lewisham Council, plus answers to other questions likely to be of particular interest to people in Hither Green, Ladywell and the centre of Lewisham.

Question by Councillor Milton
of the Cabinet Member for Regeneration

Question

How many planning applications in total has Bellway Homes made in respect of the former Hither Green Hospital site? For how many units, and for what estimated total occupancy, was planning permission sought in each application?

Reply

In relation to the Bellways development under construction /partially completed at Hither Green Hospital, the history in relation to the number of units/applications is as follows:

APPLICATION 1
Planning permission was granted in March 2003 for a mixed use development containing 442 residential units, a leisure/health club, live/work units, retail (Class A1) and office/café (Class B1/A3) space, a doctor’s surgery and crèche.

This provided 1,279 habitable rooms (276 habitable rooms per hectare).

APPLICATION 2
Planning permission was granted for a revised scheme in early 2004 that comprised a total of 493 residential units, a leisure/health club, live/work units, retail (Class A1) and office/café (Class B1/A3), a doctor’s surgery and crèche.

This provides 1,358 habitable rooms (291 habitable rooms per hectare).

APPLICATION 3
A planning application is currently under consideration which proposes 46 additional units within Block H, which would bring the overall number of residential units to 539.

This would provide 1,432 habitable rooms (307 habitable rooms per hectare).

The density in relation to application 1 was considered to be acceptable in the interest of achieving a design-led high quality layout, creating a new public piazza and a new courtyard at the former entrance.

The increase in density in relation to application 2 was considered to be beneficial to the overall design.

The current application will be considered on its merits in relation to a number of factors which will include design, layout, massing, affordable housing content, density and transport/parking issues.

Question by Councillor Milton
of the Cabinet Member for Regeneration

Question

If the Council were to go ahead with building a school on the site of the Ladywell Leisure Centre, what effect would this have on the local transport infrastructure? What plans does the Council have to cope with this effect, including:

• improving traffic flows at the intersection of Courthill Road and Lewisham High Street;

• providing better pedestrian crossing facilities at this intersection, and elsewhere in the neighbourhood of the school; and

• negotiating with TfL to provide better and more frequent bus services to the site.

Reply

As the proposals are at a relatively early stage it is difficult to comment in detail. The principal issues that we shall examine in association with Transport for London are almost certainly those of pedestrian safety in the vicinity of the proposal site and optimised public transport, cycling and pedestrian accessibility to and from the site.

If planning consent is granted, it will be conditional upon a planning obligation that requires school management to prepare and maintain a student and staff Travel Plan. The philosophy of the travel plan is to encourage the use of public transport, walking and cycling as effective alternatives to car use.

Question by Councillor Milton
of the Cabinet Member for Housing

Question

Pat Hayes wrote to Circle 33 on 4 November on the action to be undertaken in relation to the Mercator Estate.
This includes consultation on security doors for those blocks of flats on the estate which do not currently have them. When will this consultation be complete, and, if it favours security doors, when will these be installed?

Reply

A letter asking residents to indicate on a tear-off slip whether they want security doors included or not included in the refurbishment programme has been hand delivered by Circle 33 staff so that all residents will have received a copy by Friday 12 November. The deadline for replying is 18 November and a stamped addressed envelope to facilitate this has been supplied with each questionnaire.

In respect of the overall scheme of which security works would form a part: we have invited the Mercator Community Association (MCA) representatives to be involved in the selection of contractors; and once the selection process is complete, the 2nd stage consultation will commence. At this point we will be advising all leaseholders of the estimated cost of the works and the contribution that they will be expected to make.

Installation will start after successful completion of the 2nd stage consultation process and approval by the Mayor and Cabinet of the contract award.

It is hoped that the contract will commence early in 2005.

Question by Councillor Flood
of the Cabinet Member for Culture

Question

The closure of Ladywell Swimming Baths will deny the local population a means of promoting their health for at least a three year period. What consultation does the council plan to do regarding this and how will it assess any impact on the health of the local population?

Reply

Through its strategy on leisure, the Council is committed to ensuring that all its residents have access to high quality leisure and sports facilities. As part of this strategy, the Council is opening a new leisure centre, with a swimming pool, in Downham in 2006 and a new flagship leisure facility in 2010 as part of the redevelopment of Lewisham Town Centre.

Prior to the closure of the Ladywell Leisure Centre, the Council will be consulting and discussing with current users of the Centre on how best they can access the many other leisure and sports facilities available across the borough.

We are also working closely with our partners,including Community Education Lewisham and the voluntary sector, to re-accommodate users and hirers of the Ladywell facilities. The Council is working on a decant plan for the centre and with partners is seeking to minimise any inconvenience users may face in accessing alternative provision.

In addition we have appointed a team of physical activity development officers to increase the range and number of physical activity opportunities for local people. These officers, working closely with our partners in the public, private and voluntary sector, will be developing a 5 year plan to deliver this increase.

The Council will continue to work with the Primary Care Trust and other health specialists to assess the impact of our leisure strategy. Together we are focused on improving health outcomes for all our residents.

Question by Councillor Morris
of the Mayor

Question

What assurances can the Mayor give that the new swimming pool and leisure centre in Lewisham will be completed and open to the public by 2010 at the very latest, considering (a) earlier predictions that it would be completed by 2007 or 2008, and (b) his specific manifesto commitment made to the electors of Lewisham in 2002 that the Downham Lifestyles Project would be completed in 2004?

Reply

The proposed site for the new leisure centre is on the frontage of the Sundermead Estate which is in the process of complete re-development. Strategic development are confident that the redevelopment of the Sundermead Estate will be completed on schedule in March 2007. To date the re-development has progressed well and has met all anticipated target dates. We therefore fully anticipate that the site will be ready to start preparations for the construction of the new leisure centre in March 2007.

With respect to the Downham Lifestyles project, this substantial, innovative and groundbreaking development is now close to the appointment of a contractor ready to undertake the initial funding and building of the facilities with the objective of opening to the public in the summer of 2006. The delay in achieving an earlier completion has been due to the complex commercial nature of this project which involves the prospective contractor operating the Lifestyles Centre and Park for 30 years once the facilities are opened.

Question by Councillor Britton
of the Cabinet Member for Housing

Question

How does Lewisham Housing supervise the work of the partnership housing authorities such as JSS Pinnacle, Circle 33 and WT Hayward? What is the procedure for tenants who feel aggrieved by the service offered by them to make a complaint? How is the operation of this procedure monitored? How many such complaints have been received - please list with the names of the authorities concerned? What powers does the Council have to ensure that genuine problems/complaints are rectified?

Reply

The Regeneration Directorate is responsible for monitoring the performance of each housing management contractor to ensure that they meet the standards stipulated in their contract. The monitoring process involves monthly meetings with each of the contractors at which performance is discussed and any problems identified. Any necessary remedial action can then be implemented as quickly as possible.

The performance of our contractors, along with the performance of the in-house housing service, is reported in a monthly performance information pack.

The Council has a corporate complaints policy which dissatisfied service users can access. The policy has three stages.

• Stage one - The Service Manager deals with complaints within 10 working days.
Residents can contact the Regeneration Directorates Service Review Team on 020 8314 7044 for advice and assistance.

• Stage two - If the resident is unhappy with the response received, they can ask for their complaint to be reviewed at the second stage of the policy. This is dealt with by the Head of Housing within 20 working days.

• Stage three - If the resident is still unhappy with the response received, they can ask for the complaint to be reviewed at the third stage of the policy. This is dealt with by the Chief Executive's Office within 20 working days.

If the complainant still remains unhappy, they can contact the Local Government Ombudsman.

All complaints are closely monitored by the Service Review Team to make sure that the response is of a high standard and that the complaint is answered within the specified timescale. The Service Review Team would intervene if there was a high volume of complaints received about a particular individual or service unit.

The Service Review Team carry out two audits per year and the results are reported to the Head of Housing. The Service Review Manager also produces quarterly reports to the Head of Housing who decides if further action is appropriate.

The numbers of complaints received for the period 1 April 2004 to 30 October 2004 as per our monitoring system are listed below. These figures include Stage 1, 2, and 3 complaints, Members and MP enquiries, Ombudsman Enquiries and Enquiries to the Mayor.

Circle 33 manages 6484 properties and received 206 complaints (3.2%)

Haywards manages 1425 properties and received 21 complaints (1.5%)

Pinnacle PSG manages 4783 properties in total and received 240 complaints (5%).
- Sydenham has 2853 properties and received 104 complaints (3.6%) - Forest Hill has 1930 properties and received 136 complaints (7.0%)

Part of the role of the service review team is to carry out audits and to identify trends in order to improve service delivery. They also liaise and negotiate with service managers to resolve complaints.

Question by Councillor Houghton
of the Cabinet Member for Environment

Question

With regard to my question at Full Council on 15th September 2004, have all households in the borough now received details of the new doorstep recycling arrangements?

Reply

Leaflets have now been delivered to all the roads that did not originally receive one. These roads were identified by requests to Callpoint, calls received by Regeneration and roads identified by the recycling crews.

An extensive advertising campaign will run for the next 18 months providing information about the recycling service. This will include:

• a half page spread in the Newshopper and Mercury
• an ongoing poster campaign across the Borough about the extra materials and recycling services.

A communication programme is being produced and over the next 18 months from Monday 15th November, four recycling champions will be 'door knocking' at residents homes to provide information and encourage households to recycle, reuse and reduce their waste. This programme is being part funded by the London Recycling Fund.

An extensive participation/questionnaire survey will be undertaken in the next few weeks, which will ensure that areas are targeted effectively and provide a social-demographic outline of the Borough.
The Lewisham waste education trailer has visited many of the main shopping areas over the last few weeks providing information and leaflets about the services.

The kerbside service has seen an increase of 40% in terms of tonnage over the last 6 weeks and this continues to rise. Whilst there are no guarantees that every household has received/read the leaflet it is hoped that over the coming months everyone in Lewisham will be aware of this service.

Thames Water: under-pressure?

Fri, 19 Nov 2004 09:17:00 GMT

A rather worrying briefing note by the Association of London Government on Thames Water.

BRIEFNG NOTE ON THAMES WATER

The purpose of this briefing note is to highlight the practices within Thames water Utilities Ltd., which are leaving residents in 28 of the 33 London Boroughs without an adequate water supply.

Supply disruption

Local Authorities and their residents have faced and continue to face significant disruption to water supplies as a result of bursts, ad hoc repairs and planned maintenance. The impact of these on residents takes the form of water cut offs both day and night and an overall reduction in water pressures. In order to ensure the supply of water to residents in high rise blocks, 6 London boroughs have collectively spent over £1.3 million in the last two years on water supply equipment. We are advised that as part of their water rationalisation programme Thames Water intend to substantially reduce water pressure in a series of zonal programmes to well below historic levels in London with a pilot pressure management scheme in the Woodford area which began earlier this year.

Over the last few months there has been a number of articles in the housing press, London press, BBC and other media on the water pressure problems faced by London residents and it has become apparent that the issue with water pressure extends to other property types including Victorian and post war terraces, listed buildings and conservation areas.

Poor liaison with local authorities

Thames Water have a poor level of communication with London Boroughs when implementing major operational changes to water supply and in certain localities have reduced water pressure without always giving prior notification to the local authority or their residents. Tenants and leaseholders in council-owned dwellings have been left for prolonged periods without water or any indication of when the supply will be restored.

Numerous meetings have been held at officer and political level with Thames Water at which there has been full frank and open discussion regarding the issues of water pressure, poor communication by Thames Water, lack of apparent customer care, supply of additional equipment required to maintain water supplies and related costs.

Cross party Elected Members with special responsibility for Housing met with the Managing Director and External Affairs Director of Thames Water on 6th September 2004. They were astounded to be advised by the Managing Director that he was completely unaware of the issues with the London Boroughs and had never been advised or appraised by his staff of the issues being discussed.

Poor customer care

The reduction of water pressure and at times the cessation of water in high rise blocks have very serious social, health and health and safety implications for residents. We are advised that fire sprinkler systems and high risers in blocks can be severely affected by reductions in pressure and in the event of a major fire would impair the ability of the fire service to get residents to safety.

The reduction of water pressure ensures that combination boilers are no longer operational. Families and individuals are therefore without heating and water and for those with disability, impairment, poor health or families with young children this is an intolerable situation.

Consequential costs of water pressure reduction

The Chair of the ALG wrote to Thames Water on 17 June and 19 August 2004 asking, amongst other things, for agreement in principle that Thames Water accept responsibility for meeting water systems upgrade costs in borough residential buildings facing a lowering of water pressure as a result of the zonal pressure management and reduction across London. Thames Water did not respond to this specific request.

The ALG undertook an exercise to estimate the potential costs to London to ensure the continued water supply to residents by the local authorities, initial cost estimates range from £90 million to over £300 million. The ALG position has focussed on the principle of Thames Water taking responsibility for the knock-on costs arising from their programme of works. Thames Water did in March 2004 offer boroughs a financial contribution towards survey costs of £2,500 per block. Boroughs are clear that whatever the actual costs they will almost certainly be much more than an average of £2,500 per block.

Thames has also said that any payments it makes to boroughs in respect of assets owned by the local authority are not allowable for the purposes of the regulated capital programme i.e. the programme that OFWAT allows them to obtain a rate of return. In response to this we offered solutions to this issue which Thames Water have not as yet either acknowledged or responded to.

Price Increases

In its submission to OFWAT, Thames Water requested potential price increases amounting to 40% over a five year period with 22% on the amount for the first year. We note that whilst increases have been pegged by OFWAT at 12.8% for this first year and a five year total of 16%, this is still a considerable increase in the average family’s bill.

In the Regulatory Financial Statement at 31/03/04 Thames Water report an EBITDA (Earnings before Interest, Tax, Depreciation and Amortisation) amount of £646 million pounds. We are not aware of any reason why Thames Water could not require to spend a proportion of this money on water systems upgrade costs incurred by boroughs as a result of water pressure reductions in the capital.
In September 2003 OFWAT gave evidence to the London Assembly’s Public Service Committee on the subject of the London Water Supply. In October 2003 the committee published a full report including the following recommendation.

“that Thames Water, in partnership with Ofwat and the Environment Agency, consult with landlords of tower blocks in London suffering from low water pressures, to evaluate the scale of the problem, and develop and implement a plan to make sure the effects on businesses and residents are minimised.”

The evidence from boroughs shows, that Thames Water have not cooperated or fulfilled this recommendation.

Change to customer Leakage Policy

On the 6th October 2004 Thames Water issued a letter to Local authorities advising them of a major change to their leakage policy whereby local authorities would be held responsible for the fixing of all leaks within the boundary of council-owned properties. This policy amendment became operational on Monday 11th October and the notification of this change is both ill timed and completely unacceptable.
Thames Water have given no indication of why this policy change is being implemented at this time nor have they apparently given any consideration to the aspect of customer care.

Communications of this nature merely reinforce the belief of boroughs that Thames Water has little or no respect for customers and no concept of the term consultation.

at last, Lewisham Council writes to Circle 33 about Mercator Estate

Sun, 07 Nov 2004 06:31:00 GMT

Letter from Pat Hayes (Head of Regeneration, Lewisham Council) to Circle 33, of 4 November, following up action agreed on 21 September:

"I am writing to confirm the course of action the Council wishes you to take in respect of the Mercator estate following our recent meeting with tenants and leaseholders. I am also copying this to David Lewis, Bob Weyman and Angela Slaven. Please could you ensure that the following action is taken:

1. Circle 33 will take robust action against those responsible for vandalism and other anti social behaviour on the estate. This to include seeking (and obtaining) ASBOs against perpetrators and pursuing action, where appropriate, under tenancy agreements against those who are Council tenants either on Mercator estate or elsewhere.

2. Repairs should be carried out to the CCTV camera. It must at least appear to be operational, i.e. moving, even if difficulties with the digital link cannot be fully resolved immediately.

3. Subject to the clear support of all relevant residents and a positive response being received from both informal and formal leaseholder consultation, fit to the premises with shared front doors (as part of the refurbishment scheme) with an entry phone system to control access.

4. A process of consultation with residents, including young people, be carried out to identify any small scale environmental works such as the gating of alleyways, alterations to pram sheds etc which enjoy general support. The advice of appropriate professionals being sought before any such works are put into effect.

5. Other minor works such as rebulbing of lamp columns and pruning of trees is quickly carried out to enhance security on the estate.

6. Street Wardens will in future report all anti social behaviour directly to Circle 33 who will be responsible for vigorously following up as described in 1 above."

Press Release on site of new secondary school

Fri, 15 Oct 2004 10:29:00 GMT

Joint Press Release
Liberal Democrat, Socialist Party, Conservative Party, Green Party and LEAP Groups on Lewisham Council

Contact:
Cllr. Andrew Milton, tel. 07966 430722
Cllr. Helen LeFevre, tel. 020 7358 0476
Cllr. Barrie Anderson, tel. 020 9957 0551
Cllr. Darren Johnson, tel. 07887 737 276
Cllr. Julia Fletcher, tel. 020 8318 9414
Cllr. Chris Flood, tel. 020 8694 3623

Date: 15 October 2004
Embargo: Immediate Release

Mayor given choice of schools

Next Wednesday, Lewisham’s councillors will debate the site of a new secondary school. Widespread opposition to the Mayor’s chosen site has forced him to consider alternatives.

The Mayor had set his heart on the site of Ladywell Leisure Centre, but local councillor Andrew Milton is not impressed.

“The site is totally unsuitable for a secondary school,” said Cllr. Milton. “It would be horribly cramped and would add to the current traffic chaos. This would mean tearing down a leisure centre which is well-loved and well-used by the local community.”

Cllr. Helen LeFevre agreed that it was the wrong site, and pointed to the expanding population in the north-west of the borough. “The fundamental flaw in this proposal is that it is the wrong school in the wrong place,” she said. “There is no local support or demand. Simply because the pool is available is no reason for the Council to take this path.”

The distance of this site from the areas of greatest demand was also stressed by Cllr. Barrie Anderson. “Just because the Ladywell Leisure Centre is North of the South Circular doesn’t make is a suitable location for the Deptford constituency,” he noted.

Opposition councillors have therefore suggested seven different alternatives to this site. They believe these would have much greater public, support as Cllr. Darren Johnson explained.

“Labour have let down the people of Lewisham with their disastrous decisions to close first Telegraph Hill school and now Ladywell Leisure Centre. Opposition councillors have worked together to come up with alternative proposals. We are united in urging the Council to take them seriously.”

The Mayor’s proposal was debated by a meeting of Lewisham’s councillors on Wednesday 15 September, but many Labour councillors did not turn up. Under considerable pressure from councillors and the public, the Mayor agreed to postpone the vote.

As a result, councillors will debate and vote on all the suggested sites on Wednesday 20 October. Cllr. Julia Fletcher urged the Mayor to keep an open mind. “We sincerely hope that this is more than a stunt by the Mayor and he will seriously consider our suggestions,” she said.

Cllr. Chris Flood believed that Labour councillors should also be open-minded and consider the views of their voters. “If the debate is to be truly open and democratic, the Labour leadership will allow a free vote. It is well known that there is dissent and disapproval of the Mayor’s plans amongst Labour councillors. The simple fact is they fear speaking out.

“We agree with the Save Ladywell Pool Campaign and call for councillors to vote according to their consciences.”

Press release: Lewisham's Cultural Heritage

Tue, 31 Aug 2004 04:09:00 GMT

This s a copy of my recent press release commenting on the National Lottery's decision to help fund Black History Month, and the need generally to make more of Lewisham's Cultural Heritage.

"Commenting on the National Lottery's decision to help fund Black History Month, Cllr. Andrew Milton said “This is wonderful news. I am thrilled the Lottery have decided to back this popular festival. It showcases the boroughs' most talented black performers. It also allows the boroughs' various black populations to celebrate their heritage - celebrations everyone can join in.

“The borough of Lewisham and its people, of all ethnic backgrounds, have a fascinating history that is often overlooked. Fortunately, we have a number of excellent historical societies in the borough. They have a wealth of knowledge about the history of every area of the borough, from Deptford to Downham.

“This history includes everything from innovations such as Deptford railway and power stations and the signalling point at Telegraph Hill, to tales of naval exploration and highwaymen. Literary figures such as Samuel Pepys and Christopher Marlowe also put in appearances.

“We have also been at the forefront of popular art for decades. Spike Milligan and the authors of The Railway Children and Tarka the Otter all lived in Lewisham. Dire Straits, Kate Bush, Squeeze and Maxi Priest all started out in the borough.

"Lewisham really could make a lot more of this incredible cultural heritage. While the Laban Centre and the Catford Broadway and Albany Theatres are popular, much more could be done.

"Why can't Lewisham be as famous for its popular arts and heritage as Camden is for its markets or Notting Hill is for its carnival?""

Council estates in Lewisham Central

Wed, 21 Jul 2004 07:57:00 GMT

Here is a letter I've just received about issues I recently raised about Council estates in Lewisham Central:

"Issues on Council Estates

Thank you for your enquiry regarding Council Estates in Lewisham Central Ward. I have investigated the issues and have been advised by Circle33 our managing agents as follows:

Circle33 are aware of the problems with the children's play area and confirm that they have already added this to their list of small scheme improvement to be considered for next year. I am also advised that the gate will be considered under this same scheme together with the work to the drying area.

I am also informed that the Tenancy Officer, Keith Clifford will write to all the residents to advise them about their responsibilities as parents.

Fly tipping is reported to, and cleared by Environmental Services whenever they become aware of flytipping.

In relation to outside of the flats, all external decoration is carried out on a cyclical basis. It is not yet possible to indicate when Littlebourne will be decorated as the numbers of properties which can be included each year depend on the available budget and relative priority compared to other blocks. However Circle 33 are arranging an inspection of the decoration and spalling concrete to determine the priority.

Circle33 further confirms that orders have been placed to remove vegetation growing on block 100 Hither Green Lane and to replace the broken padlock to the roof area at Clavering House and will ensure urgent completion."

Leicester election

Fri, 16 Jul 2004 05:06:00 GMT

courtesy of Monty Python

Cleese: (talking very fast, as do all the commentators): Hello, good evening
and welcome to Election Night Special. There's tremendous excitement here at
the moment and we should be getting the first results through any moment
now. We're not sure where it will be from, it might be Leicester or from
West Byfleet, the polling's been quite heavy in both areas. Ah, I'm just
getting... I'm just getting... a buzzing noise in my left ear. Urgh, argh!
(removes insect and stamps on it). And now let's go straight over to
Leicester.
Palin: And it's a straight fight here at Leicester and we're expecting the
result any moment now. There with the Returning Officer is Arthur Smith the
sensible candidate and next to him is Jethro Q. Walrustitty the silly
candidate with his agent and his silly wife.
Idle: (clears throat) Here is the result for Leicester. Arthur J. Smith...
Cleese: Sensible Party
Idle: ...30,612. (applause) Jethro Q. Bunn Whackett Buzzard Stubble and Boot
Walrustitty...
Cleese: Silly Party
Idle: ...33,108. (applause)
Cleese: Well there we have the first result of the election and the Silly
party has held Leicester. Norman.
Palin: Well pretty much as I predicted, except that the Silly party won. Er,
I think this is largely due to the number of votes cast. Gerald.
Chapman: Well there's a big swing here to the Silly Party, but how big a
swing I'm not going to tell you.
Palin: I think one should point out that in this constituency since the last
election a lot of very silly people have moved into new housing estates with
the result that a lot of sensible voters have moved further down the road
the other side of number er, 29.
Cleese: Well I can't add anything to that. Colin?
Idle: Can I just say that this is the first time I've been on television?

press release on the closure of Ladywell Leisure Centre

Mon, 28 Jun 2004 08:28:00 GMT

Here is the press release on the closure of Ladywell Leisure Centre which the Liberal Democrat Group issued on Monday

Contact: Cllr. Andrew Milton
020 8695 8925
07966 430722

Date: 28 June 2004
Embargo: Immediate Release

Lib Dem speaks out against Leisure Centre demolition

Lewisham Central councillor Andrew Milton has criticised the Council’s plan to replace Ladywell Leisure Centre with a school.

‘This is an important asset to people living in my ward and surrounding areas,’ says Cllr Milton. ‘The Council recognise its importance – why else would they have spent £1.8m on reopening it?

‘But now they plan to knock it down in 2007. The replacement in Lewisham isn’t due to open until 2010. Indeed, they don’t even plan to start building it for a few years yet. Judging by the Council’s recent performance, there may well be long delays.

‘So my constituents won’t be able to pop down the road for a swim. They will have to travel miles if they want to use a leisure centre. They have already had to put up with this for nearly two years. To ask them to do so for another three years or more is adding insult to injury.

‘Many Lewisham residents will have lost trust in the Council over this. Before the elections, the Council were encouraging people to join up as members of the leisure centre. Now they look set to close it.

‘This is all because the Council are determined to put a secondary school in Ladywell, when the demand is greatest in the North of the borough. It’s in New Cross that there is a clamour for a new school. In Lewisham Central, we’d rather keep our leisure centre.’

Proposal to close Ladywell Leisure Centre

Sun, 27 Jun 2004 05:40:00 GMT

This is the paper going to Lewisham's Mayor and Cabinet for decision on Wednesday 30 June. The meeting will be at 6.30 at Lewisham Town Hall, and is open to the public. I will be attending, so would welcome your views.

MAYOR AND CABINET

Report Title
NEW SECONDARY SCHOOL PROPOSAL - POSITION REPORT
Key Decision
YES Item No. 12

Ward

Contributors
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR EDUCATION & CULTURE/DEPUTY CHIEF EXECUTIVE/EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FOR REGENERATION
Class
Part 1 Date: 30 JUNE 2004

1. PURPOSE OF REPORT

This report sets out the current position on the development of the new secondary school for Lewisham. It proposes a new preferred site for the new school because of continuing delay and uncertainty about the probability of securing the current preferred site.

2. SUMMARY

2.1 Improving the educational achievement of young people is one of the Council's priorities. The current School Organisation Plan predicts that demand for secondary school places in Lewisham will increase by 10% from now until 2008/09. As part of its overall strategy to provide a local high quality secondary school place for every Lewisham child that wants one the Council is committed to building a new secondary school north of the South Circular Road where demand for places is greatest.

2.2 After extensive public consultation the Mayor and Cabinet chose a site in Ladywell Road, known as the Playtower Site, as the preferred location for the new school. The early availability of this site was a key consideration in that decision although that availability was dependent on the acquisition of a former Police Station on the site from the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

2.3 Delay in the marketing of the Police Station by the MPS and possible further delay in the confirmation of any sale has eroded the advantage of availability the Ladywell Playtower site had over other sites consulted upon – the Breakspear Campus of Lewisham College in Lewisham Way and the Ladywell Leisure Centre in Lewisham High Street.

2.4 The Ladywell Leisure Centre is now recommended as the preferred site for the new school. The Leisure Strategy assumes the development of a new leisure facility in the Town Centre and the closure of the Ladywell Leisure Centre. A new school could open on the Leisure Centre site as early as 2009. This compares against a predicted, but less certain, opening date of 2008 for the Playtower site. The Playtower site opening date is considered less certain because of possible further delay in the acquisition of the Police Station and because of the more complex planning issues associated with the development of the Playtower Site.

2.5 The current leisure strategy assumes the closure of the Leisure Centre in 2010 when the new wet leisure facility proposed as part of the redevelopment of the Sundermead estate opens. The early closure of the Centre to facilitate a 2009 school opening will mean that some residents may be inconvenienced by having to travel to facilities elsewhere within the borough until the new facility is open. This needs to be balanced against the commitment to open a new secondary school as soon as possible in response to predicted future deficit in secondary school places north of the South Circular Road.

2.6 The Breakspear Campus site has been ruled out because of uncertainty about the timing of its availability for redevelopment.

2.7 Because of the pressure on secondary places it is also proposed that the new school opens on the site of the former Ennersdale School in Leahurst Road from September 2006.It is further proposed that when the new schools moves from this site to its permanent location the vacated site is used to accommodate the proposed expansion of Northbrook school.

3. RECOMMENDATIONS

Mayor and Cabinet are recommended to:

3.1 Agree the nomination of the Ladywell Leisure Centre as the new preferred site for the new secondary school for the reasons set out within Section 6.

3.2 Agree the development of a programme to open the new school on the Ladywell Leisure Centre Site for September 2009 (subject to a decision being made to proceed with the proposals following the consultation processes outlined in the report), noting the implications for leisure provision discussed within Section 7.

3.3 Not to proceed with a bid for the former Lewisham Police Station. (The submission of a bid was previously recommended and agreed by Mayor and Cabinet on 17 March 2004).

3.4 Re-endorse the decision, made on 17 March 2004, that the Leahurst Road site be nominated as the preferred temporary location of the new school from September 2006.

3.5 Re-endorse the decision, made on 17 March 2004, that subject to the agreement of the Northbrook School’s Governing Body, the Leahurst Road site be used to accommodate the expansion of Northbrook School when the new school relocates to its permanent location.

3.6 Agree the consultation arrangements set out in section 9.

3.7 Agree the funding arrangements as set out in Section 11 of the report by the Deputy Chief Executive.

4. POLICY CONTEXT

Improving the educational achievement of young people is one of the Council’s top priorities. Lewisham has a strategy to ensure that there is an adequate provision of secondary school places in the Borough. The strategy is intended to provide a strong foundation on which schools may build plans in the continued drive to raise standards of education for all pupils in Lewisham. Individual development strategies include proposals to create a new secondary school and proposals to expand the number of school places at some existing secondary schools in the Borough.

5. BACKGROUND

5.1 The current School Organisation Plan predicts that demand for secondary school places in Lewisham will increase by 10% from now until 2008/9 with the demand for new places being greatest north of the South Circular Road.

5.2 The transfer of sixth form provision from the schools of the present Crossways Consortium to the new Crossways Academy provides the opportunity to increase intakes at Crofton and Deptford Green Schools. This, with plans to re-open Malory School and St Joseph’s Academy as new Academies, under the Academy Scheme, and the intention to open a new 4-form entry 11-16 Community School will provide the additional places needed.

5.3 On 26 February 2003 Mayor and Cabinet chose a site in Ladywell Road, known as the Ladywell Playtower Site, as the preferred location for the new secondary school. A civic building known as the Ladywell Playtower, the former Ladywell Police Station and a Coroner’s Court and Mortuary presently occupy this site. This decision was reached after extensive consultation on this and two other possible sites options for the new school. The other sites were the Breakspear Campus of Lewisham College in Lewisham Way and the Ladywell Leisure Centre in Lewisham High Street.

5.4 Following this decision the Building Design Partnership (BDP) were commissioned to report on the site from an urban design and capacity perspective. BDP had assisted in the evaluation of potential sites prior to consultation. On the basis of their report Mayor and Cabinet agreed on 23 July 2003 to the commissioning of further feasibility work, including intrusive surveys and detailed cost modelling. This work has, however, not been progressed because of delay and uncertainty around the assembly of the site as discussed below.

5.5 The early availability of the Ladywell Playtower site, which is subject to the acquisition of the Police Station, was a key consideration in it being selected over the other sites. It was originally thought that a new school could be opened on this site as early as 2006 but this has now been revised to 2008 (and possibly later) because it has not been possible to progress the purchase the Police Station as envisaged.

5.6 Following early discussion with the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on the acquisition of the Police Station it decided in December 2003 that it could not proceed with the sale through closed negotiation. After much delay the MPS, through agents, finally advertised the site's availability on 12 June with a closing date for offers being the 29 July. Given the need for offers to be evaluated and verified by their agents and then reported to and decided upon by the MPS it seems unlikely that any decision would be made by them before September 2004. With the planning issues related to the site it is conceivable that decisions could be delayed even longer.

5.7 Prior to the Police Station coming to the market Mayor and Cabinet had agreed on 17 March 2004 to a full review of the alternatives to the Ladywell Playtower site. This was on consideration of the delay in the marketing of the Police Station and that Council might ultimately not be successful in its bid for the property.

5.8 On 26 February 2003, when the Ladywell Playtower site was chosen as the preferred site for the new school, Mayor and Cabinet also agreed that work be progressed to identify an appropriate temporary location for the new school allowing it to open while the permanent site was developed. On 17 March 2004 Mayor and Cabinet agreed that preliminary consultation and feasibility work be commenced on the use of a site in Leahurst Road as the preferred temporary location of the new school and as an extension to Northbrook school once the permanent school site was ready.

5.9 The site in Leahurst Road is currently being used by Hither Green School as part of the decant arrangements for their redevelopment but it is planned that this use of the site will end early in 2005. The expansion of Northbrook School is an aim within the Secondary School Strategy agreed in November 2002 and funding in support of this aim has been agreed as part of the Building Schools for the Future Pathfinder Project.

6. ALTERNATIVE SITE OPTIONS

The delay in the marketing of the Police Station, and possible further delay in the confirmation of any sale, has eroded the primary advantage of availability the Ladywell Playtower Site had over the other sites previously consulted upon. As previously stated the revised earliest opening date for a new school on this site is now September 2008. This section of the report looks again at the other site options, against the criteria of availability, ownership, planning, development and costs, and reconsiders the preferred status of the Ladywell Playtower site.

6.1 Lewisham College - Breakspear Campus (Lewisham Way)

6.1.1 Ownership

The site is in the freehold ownership of Lewisham College and comprises four parts: the Tresillian building, the car park and Lea House all with a frontage to Lewisham Way, and the Breakspear building behind Tresillian on Breakspear Road.

6.1.2 Availability

As part of its overall accommodation strategy the College previously wanted to relocate a significant part of the activity currently on the Breakspear Campus to Lewisham Town Centre. While still seeking a Town Centre presence it is understood that the College is now unlikely to vacate the Breakspear Campus to the extent previously envisaged raising uncertainty about its suitability to house a new 4 form entry school.

The present Town Centre development timetable assumes contracting with the development partner by the end of July. The proposed developer's timetable is a phased development programme with completion of the block that will include the College at the end of the development programme that could extend to 2011. There is, however, potential to amend this programme if the college were able to fund the replacement sooner. Potentially, therefore, a new secondary school could not open on the Breakspear site, allowing a further 18 months for works, until at least September 2013.

6.1.3 Planning Issues

The site is currently in educational use and there are therefore no planning reasons why it cannot be used for a secondary school. One of the buildings on the Campus – Lea House – is listed. It is currently in educational use, but would be difficult to upgrade to meet access requirements under the Disability Discrimination Act. The most straightforward planning option for Lea House would be a residential conversion.

6.1.4 Development Issues

The redevelopment of the Town Centre is to be undertaken by a commercial partner through a joint venture agreement with the LDA. Other landowners in the town centre, including the Council and Transport for London, will be required to transfer their landholdings to the LDA and the detailed terms of these are currently being negotiated. The LDA plus its commercial partner, to be sought through competitive selection using OJEC procedures, will finalise the detail of the redevelopment scheme including the terms by which end users (including the college) will benefit. The requirements/interest of the College will form part of the development brief that is being prepared to market the Town Centre opportunity to the private commercial sector.

6.1.5 Site Costs/Acquisitions

In order for the College to fund the Town Centre building it needs to maximise its receipt for the Breakspear Campus Site. While the College have indicated a willingness to enter into closed negotiations with the Council on this acquisition (or part acquisition) the purchase price would have to reflect the potential for residential development.

6.1.6 Summation

This site was the most popular site, in location terms, from the previous consultation. However, the consultation raised considerable concern about the timescales of this option given the complex negotiations that need to be concluded with regard to the College's relocation to the Town Centre. These concerns remain. A major risk is that the Council may also not be able to afford the residential value the College would seek for this site. This is compounded by new uncertainty about the extent to which the site is potentially available for redevelopment.

6.2 Ladywell Leisure Centre

6.2.1 Ownership

The site is in the freehold ownership of the Council. Part of the site, is occupied by the Lewisham Opportunity Pre School. The Centre is currently the subject of an investment/management contract with CCL, which has a further three years to run.

6.2.2 Availability

The Centre was shut in August 2002 to allow for the removal of asbestos from non-public areas. This work is now complete and the Centre re-opened in June 2004. The present leisure strategy proposes permanent closure of this facility in 2010 when the new wet leisure facility proposed as part of the redevelopment of the Sundermead Estate is currently scheduled to open. To achieve this, further ongoing investment is likely to be required from 2007.

The date a new school might open on this site is determined by when the current leisure facility closes. If the facility only closes, as presently proposed, when the new facility is built in 2010, then the earliest a school could open on this site, allowing for a 2 year construction period, would be 2012. However, a decision could be taken to close the Centre earlier given that the new Leisure Centre in Downham is due to open in 2006.

The proposed temporary site at Leahurst Road will be available for redevelopment from the beginning of 2005 (See paragraph 5.8) allowing the new school to open on this site from September 2006 (See Section 8). Leahurst Road will be able to accommodate the first 3 years of the new school. This means the permanent site must be ready by September 2009. Given a two year build period the Leisure Centre Site would therefore need to be available for work to begin from September 2007.

The contract for the management of the Ladywell Leisure Centre ceases in October 2006. The Council will therefore need to consider arrangements for the management of the Centre for the period up to closure in 2007 and seek necessary Mayor and Cabinet consent in due course.

6.2.3 Planning Issues

The site is currently in community use. There are no significant barriers to its use for educational purposes. Access by road and public transport is good. There are no listed buildings. If the site were not used for a school, the most likely acceptable use would be housing, including 35% affordable housing.

6.2.4 Development Issues

This is a dominant site fronting Lewisham High Street and adjoining the St Mary’s Conservation Area. The proposed new school offers a unique opportunity to develop buildings with high quality design that enhances the streetscape and contribute to the overall regeneration of the area.

6.2.5 Site Costs/Acquisitions

Since the site is already in the ownership of the Council there are no site or acquisition costs. Temporary or permanent alternative accommodation will need to be found for the Lewisham Opportunity Pre School, which could be within the current site. There is, however, an opportunity cost as the Council will forego a potential future receipt for the site based on residential development values. Further investment that will be required to maintain the facility beyond the end of its current predicted operational life will be avoided.

6.2.6 Summation

This site was slightly more favoured than the Ladywell Playtower Site when previously consulted on. Depending on decision with regard to the continuity of wet leisure provision this site could be developed by 2009. Current estimates are that the cost of building a new school on the Ladywell Leisure Centre Site would be about 3.5% less than the cost of building on the Lewisham Playtower Site.

6.3 Conclusion

6.3.1 On weighing up the site and cost considerations it is proposed that, on balance, the Breakspear Campus option is ruled out on timescale and cost grounds. It is also considered to present too many risks and uncertainties to warrant further consideration.

6.3.2 This leaves a comparison to be drawn between the Ladywell Leisure Centre and the Ladywell Playtower as potential sites for the new school. The earliest the new school could open on the Ladywell Leisure Centre site, assuming the Centre closes in 2007 would be 2009. Assuming there is no further delay in the marketing of the former Ladywell Police Station and that the Council is successful in its bid, which are both significant assumptions, the earliest opening date for the Ladywell Playtower Site would be 2008.

6.3.3 The achievement of a firm opening date on the leisure centre site is considered to be much more predictable than the achievement of a given date on the Ladywell Playtower site because of the continuing uncertainty around the marketing and acquisition of the Police Station and the more complex planning issues associated with the development of the Playtower Site. Part of the Police Station and the Coroners Court are listed buildings - incorporating these into a new school development will be challenging. The whole site is next to the St Mary's Conservation area and St Mary's Church is one of the oldest buildings in the borough. Any adjacent development will need to be very sensitive. It should further be recognised that where the Council itself is the developer of listed buildings, formal planning responsibility lies with GoL advised by English Heritage, not the Council.

7. LEISURE RE-PROVISION / CONTINUITY

For the reasons discussed above the Ladywell Leisure Centre site is now recommended as the preferred site for the new school. The existing arrangements assumed the closure of Ladywell Leisure Centre in 2010 on completion of a new high quality wet leisure facility as part of the redevelopment of the Sundermead Estate. The early closure of the Centre will mean that residents may be inconvenienced by having to travel to facilities elsewhere within the borough until the new facility is open. However, in the absence of an alternative site for the new school this temporary gap in leisure provision in the Town Centre needs to be weighed and balanced against the commitment to open a new secondary school as soon as possible in response to predicted future deficit in secondary school places north of the South Circular Road.

8. TEMPORARY SITE CONSIDERATION

8.1 Given the uncertainty about the future permanent site for the new school it has not been possible to open public consultation on the proposal to use the Leahurst Road site as a temporary site for the new secondary school or the subsequent use of the site to accommodate the expansion of Northbrook School (See paragraph 5.8-9). However, the latter proposition has been discussed with the Governing Body of Northbrook School who, while agreeing the proposal in principle, has asked the authority to ensure all possible options to accommodate the expansion have been explored. While not complete this work is sufficiently advanced to suggest that there are unlikely to be suitable alternatives to the Leahurst Road solution.

8.2 MACE Ltd was commissioned to undertake a feasibility study of the Leahurst Road site. The brief was to consider its suitability to accommodate the first 2 and 3 years of entry of a four form entry mixed secondary school. The brief was also to consider the accommodation requirements of Northbrook School on acquiring the site once the new school transferred to its permanent location.

8.3 The conclusions of the study were that an investment of approximately £3.74m would be required to successfully convert this building to accommodate the first 2 years of entry. Further investment of approximately £0.26m would be required to create the additional general teaching space needed to accommodate a further year of entry. Still further investment in the region of £0.21m would be required to accommodate the expansion proposals for Northbrook school.

8.4 This would provide facilities completely satisfying DfES requirements and guidance although Physical Education would have to take place off site. While available external space satisfies DfES social /recreational space guidelines there is a shortfall against physical education space guidelines. This will be overcome through the use of off-site facilities, although the precise arrangements are still be to determined/negotiated.

8.5 The report suggests an 18 month design and redevelopment programme.

9. CONSULTAION

9.1 Subject to Mayor and Cabinet agreement consultation will be opened, at the beginning of the new school year (September 2004), on the use of the Leahurst Road site as the preferred temporary location for the new school. Subject to Mayor and Cabinet Agreement and the agreement of the Northbrook Governing Body consultation will also be opened at the same time on the expansion of Northbrook School and the use of Leahurst Road for that purpose.

9.2 The results of the consultation will be brought back to Mayor and Cabinet in November 2004 for decision on whether, in the light of the consultation, to proceed with the issue of the statutory notice required by legislation with regard to the establishment of the new school and whether to recommend the Governing Body of Northbrook School to proceed with the issue of the statutory notice setting out its expansion proposal. On this timetable, and subject to a decision to proceed being made in November, the proposals could be presented for determination by the School Organisation Committee in February 2005.

9.3 The design and construction contract for the redevelopment of Leahurst Road would need to be let by March 2005 to achieve a September 2006 opening. The construction contract for the building of the new school on the Ladywell Leisure Centre Site would need to be let by September 2007 to achieve a September 2009 opening.

10. FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

10.1 The Executive Director for Resources & Deputy Chief Executive’s comments, set out in paragraph 11, provides a high level summary of the financial implications for the Council of the development of the new school.

10.2 The Council has secured basic needs funding of £14.46m for the provision of additional secondary school places. This is received by the Council as borrowing sanctions as part of the single capital pot and £8m has been aside for the new school.

10.3 The present estimated cost of the development on the Ladywell Leisure Centre site is £22m including professional fees and furniture and fittings. At this stage, in the absence of outline design work, these are early estimates of the likely costs. This also includes the cost of developing the Leahurst Road site both as a temporary site for the new school and to accommodate the long-term expansion of Northbrook.

10.4 Officers are discussing with the DfES the scope for additional funding to address the current gap in resources and the results of these will be reported to Mayor & Cabinet in November 2004.

10.5 Further work has been commissioned that will more clearly establish the potential costs of the development. These include further feasibility work to determine the development options for the Leisure Centre including the capacity of the site to provide other development that could assist in reducing the funding gap.

11. Comments of the Executive Director for Resources & Deputy Chief Executive – Financial Implications for the Council’s Budget

11.1 Introduction

The commitment to build a new school in the 5 financial years of 2005/6 (temporary site), 2006/7 (temporary site), and for the main site 2007/8, 2008/9 and 2009/10 is at present the single largest investment decision affecting the Other Services Capital Programme (OSCP).

At this stage - that is Members being asked to agree to the principle of using the Lewisham Leisure Centre site as the preferred location owing to the difficulties we have experienced in securing the Ladywell Police Station site - costings are not as advanced for the new proposal as they are for the Play Tower/Police Station site. Clearly more detailed work is now required because the figures given below are in broad outline only.

However, it is important that Members are aware of the size and scale of the in-principle decision being taken, because these broad outline figures continue to form a material commitment. It should be stressed that the recommendation to change sites has not led to a more costly option -indeed the Leisure Centre option may be less costly to deliver - but the report does identify the capital gap in greater detail than previous reports.

For the Play Tower option, capital resources of £11.2m have so far been set aside for the New School project within the Council's borrowing plans. This is comprised of £8.7m already banked and a forecast for next year's allocation: 2002/3 (£3.6m); 2003/4 (£3.8m); 2004/5 (£1.3m) and 2005/6 (£2.5m). These Basic Needs Approvals are distributed on a formulaic basis to Councils for secondary places, as part of the single capital pot; and officers have already recommended via capital programme reports that these sums are set aside in full for the new school.

It is to be hoped that DfES may provide some additional funding, in general, that can be added to these sums. At present there is no confirmation that Basic Needs Approvals will continue past 2005/6.

11.2 Costs of the Play Tower Option

The new school project has up to now been estimated as £24m expenditure. Proceeding with this option would mean that a further £12.8m needs to be identified over the next 5 years.

For the option of Ladywell Leisure Centre, it is not necessary to purchase land for sire assembly; and so bearing in mind our estimate of £2m to procure the police station, we start off with a rough baseline estimate for the purposes of this report of project costs totalling £22m for the new option - thus requiring a further £10.8m to be identified. This ballpark figure is based on the standard space standards used by DfES. Approximately this is comprised of £4m for the temporary site, and £18m for the permanent site.

The decision to proceed in principle, therefore, requires thorough financial management planning in order to maintain the Council's financial stability.

11.3 The Need for More Detailed Costings on the New Preferred Option

Further work is now required to reassure Members that every effort will be made by the Education & Culture Directorate to ensure that the estimated costs are accurate and will withstand the passage of time in the forthcoming 5 years.

This is an important point for Members to consider, because given the material size of the project, any cost variations could have significant implications; and the tendency within the Council for large capital projects to overrun in cost owing to 'unforeseen circumstances' cannot be allowed to occur on this occasion. The Council must be confident that professional estimates and capital project planning, that will be carried out under contract, are sound for these purposes. At his early stage outline estimates are often found to be +/- 25% in error.

11.4 Requirement to Set Aside Funds Pending More Detailed Costings

It is also imperative that Members endorse the approach that officers indicate on an ongoing basis how it is intended to bridge the gap in the capital finances of the scheme, in order to avoid an unplanned drain on the Council's emergency reserves that would impede our prudential approach to capital programming; and so put at risk the additional borrowing we are planning, for example on highways, on the back of sound finances.

At present the capital programme is fully committed for the years 2004/5, 2005/6 and 2006/7 based on our projections for capital receipts. Clearly in rolling the programme forward from the present 3-year horizon to subsequent 3 to 4 year programme, we need to ensure that over the next 3 years we assemble most of the resources to bridge the £10.8m gap on this scheme. Bearing in mind the poor condition of many Council assets, and large r&m liabilities that are likely to occur in the years 2007/8+, it would be imprudent to assume that we can defer finding the majority of £10.2m until the expenditure occurs.

The Mayor and Cabinet has indicated that the new school is the absolute priority for resource allocation, (closely followed by CCTV expansion). Over the next 3 years, circumstances may change and so the source/mix of finance can be amended; but at this stage Members are asked to note and approve the following areas of intended cover so that an in-principle investment decision can be taken forward:

• £2m to £2.5m (assume £2.25m) receipt from the disposal of the Council's property interests in and around the Play Tower site that will now not be required for the new school. We expect that a receipt of this order can be achieved by 2005/6 if we market the site during 2004/5.

• £1.8m once-off revenue savings, (3 years at £0.6m per annum in the years 2007/8, 2008/9 and 2009/10) by the temporary closure of a town centre leisure facility. Because it is known that these revenue savings will occur, the timing of this £1.8m expenditure could be phased earlier if necessary by means of prudential borrowing. In effect, the ongoing budget for Ladywell Leisure Centre will be used to fund the new leisure development at Sundermead with effect from 20010/11; but the 3 year gap in provision will generate once-off resources that can be used to bridge the present capital gap.

• £2.5m is reserved at a rate of £0.5m in each financial year for the 5 years 2005/6, 2006/7, 2007/8, 2008/9 and 2009/10 by means of specifically earmarking revenue resources that are due to be provided in the budget model for education capital schemes (the £500k will be top-sliced from the ongoing budget of £1.2m per annum).

• £1.566m is earmarked from the likely additional PSA reward grant in 2005/6 beyond the sums presently identified in the budget for the 2 year period 2004/5 and 2005/6.

• Up to £2.684m is programmed from the Other Services Capital Programme as and when more capital and/or revenue resources become available in the years 2007/8+. For example the Council may receive additional Basic Needs Approvals if this scheme is extended or changed.

• Finally, because the preferred option set out in this report is a larger site, officers should explore whether a section of the Ladywell Leisure Centre site can be released for either sale or relocation of a kindred service, so as to release a separate site for disposal. (For exemplification of this point only, the Lewisham Library site is valued at up to £5.5m).

At present several capital schemes are operating tight to their resource allocations, for example Downham PFI is set to require an additional £700k not provided for in the fully-programmed 2004/5 to 2006/7 OSCP. Officers' advice therefore is that the element of funding, given above, from future further resources (up to £2.684m) should be kept to the very minimum for the purposes of this report.

In setting in place now a fallback position for how the New School project can be funded, the Council will be ensuring that sudden shocks do not occur in later financial years by dint of the investment decisions being taken now for several years hence. Members are asked to delegate to Deputy Chief Executive the fine tuning of this resource plan over the coming years,

• Any variations to it under existing delegation arrangements will be reported under revenue and capital budget monitoring.

• If further resources are required than set out (£22m+) options for Members will be presented via capital programme reports.

• If less resources are required or further capital funding is identified by DfES, in the first instance we will seek to release the use of PSA reward grant as capital budget cover.

Finally, the budget & policy framework for 2004/5 agreed by Full Council includes that there will be a new school with a capital gap that requires ultimate bridging, and coverage in the meantime as a fall-back position. Whilst the decisions of this paper, including the package of cover set out in these Financial Implications, do not require referral to Full Council, the Mayor & Cabinet are asked to note that ultimate decisions on bridging the funding gap will require agreement by Full Council within the 2005/6 budget setting process.

12. LEGAL IMPLICATIONS

12.1 The Human Rights Act 1998 safeguards the rights of children in the Borough to educational provision, which the Council is empowered to provide in compliance with its duties under domestic legislation.

12.2 Section 14 of the Education Act 1996 obliges each Education Authority to ensure that there are sufficient primary and secondary schools available for its area (i.e. the London Borough of Lewisham). It follows that those schools must be sufficient in number to provide for all pupils in that area, the opportunity of appropriate education.

12.3 The legal obligation is to ensure that places are available for that area. Some of the places might be provided in schools in other Boroughs but it would be Lewisham’s obligation to ensure that those places were available to Lewisham pupils.

12.4 Though the legal position remains that the Authority may meet its obligation by relying on sufficient places in neighbouring Boroughs, the aim of the proposals in this report is to ensure that the places in Lewisham are of such a standard, number and accessibility that most parents would not wish to send their children out of the Borough for their secondary education.

12.5 Members have to be satisfied that there will be available provision to meet the educational needs of current pupils for whom Lewisham is responsible.

12.6 Current legislative provision for the establishment or alteration of a school is contained in section 28 of and Schedule 6 to the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 and relevant Regulations. Section 28 of the School Standards and Framework Act stipulates that proposers, (i.e. the local education authority in relation to community schools or the governing body in relation to voluntary schools) shall before publishing statutory proposals consult such persons as seem appropriate, having regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State.

12.7 That guidance is set out in Circular 9/99 which advises as follows:

12.8 The Secretary of State considers that those bringing forward proposals should consult all interested parties. In doing so they should allow adequate time and provide sufficient information, for those being consulted to form a considered view on the matters on which they are being consulted, and should make clear how their views should be made known. Those bringing forward proposals should be able to demonstrate how they have taken into account the views expressed during the consultations in reaching any subsequent decision as to the publication of proposals. Where, in the course of consultation, a new option emerges which the proposers wish to consider, it will probably be appropriate to consult afresh on this option before proceeding to publish proposals.

12.9 The Secretary of State considers that the interested parties who should be consulted include:

• Any school which is the subject of proposals (head, staff, governors and parents).
• Any LEA likely to be affected by the proposals, including in particular neighbouring LEAs where there may be a significant cross-border movement of pupils.
• Other schools in the area, including schools in an adjoining LEA that may be affected by the proposals, whether community, foundation, voluntary or community special schools.
• Parents and teachers in the area who may be affected by the proposals, including those living in or who have children attending, a school in the area of an adjoining LEA.
• The appropriate diocesan authorities (in the case of Lewisham schools the C of E Southwark Diocesan Board of Education and the RC Archdiocese of Southwark Commission for Schools and Colleges).
• Any other interested party.

12.10 If following consultation, the Mayor was to decide to pursue the proposal with regard to the establishment of a new school, a public notice would need to be issued in accordance with detailed procedure laid down in Schedule 6 to the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 and supplemented by Schedule 2 to the Education (School Organisation Proposals) (England) Regulations 1999. Likewise the Governing Body of Northbrook School, because it is a voluntary aided school, would need to issue a public notice under the same provisions with regard to the expansion of that school

12.11 Once published there would then be a period of two months for any person to make objections to the proposals set out in the notices. If there were objections, which had not been withdrawn in writing during the two-month objection period, the proposals would need to be considered by the Lewisham School Organisation Committee. If there were no sustained objections, the LEA would have to determine whether to implement them.

12.12 The Education Act 2002 requires an Authority wishing to open a new secondary school to first invite other interested parties to put forward proposals. This provision does not apply to this proposal as the proposal to open the new school was brought forward prior to the Act being enabled.

12.13 The 2002 Act makes some changes to the legal requirements for proposals to expand or reduce existing schools. The most significant of these is that whilst the power to make proposals still rests with the LEA (for community schools) or with governors (for voluntary schools) the two month objection period will now allow comments of any kind, and not just objections, to be made.

12.14 Section 176 of the 2002 Education Act includes a duty on LEAs to have regard to any guidance from the Secretary of State about consultations with pupils in connection with the taking of decisions affecting them. The guidance, which has still to be published, has to provide for a pupil’s views to be considered in the light of its age and understanding. It is already the policy of the Authority to include pupils in the consultations. Until the appropriate regulations have been published and are in force, the details of the new consultation arrangements will not be known.

12.15 Under Section 122 of the Local Government Act 1972 a local authority may appropriate, for any purpose for which it is entitled to acquire land, any land which is no longer required for the purposes for which it is held. Section 531 empowers local education authorities to acquire land by agreement for the education function. The question of whether to appropriate the land would therefore have to be considered once a final decision has been made whether or not to proceed with the proposals set out in this report, in light of the consultation.

12.16 In deciding whether to agree the recommendations the Mayor must be satisfied that to do so is a reasonable exercise of his discretion on a consideration of all relevant matters and disregarding irrelevancies. The Mayor must carefully weigh the pros and cons of each option set out in this report.

13. EQUALITIES IMPLICATIONS

13.1 It is essential that children who come from disadvantaged backgrounds are able to find places at good secondary schools within a reasonable distance from their homes. The Authority presents proposals to ensure that there should be sufficient high quality secondary school places for all Lewisham residents who seek one and that appropriate and effective resources are made available to all schools to provide all pupils with the best possible education.

13.2 However, the Authority is aware that some groups have been traditionally excluded from the education system and specific action will be taken to ensure social inclusion when deciding the location and organisation of the new school. Particular attention will be paid to the potential adverse impacts on the grounds of race, gender and disability in the following key areas:

• Location and transport;
• Admissions;
• Design and build and accessibility;
• Curriculum.

13.3 Impact and risk assessments will be carried out in the above substantive areas to ensure that the new school is fully comprehensive and accessible within the given parameters of need and spend.

14. CRIME AND DISORDER IMPLICATIONS

The strategies in this report are aimed at the raising of standards in Lewisham secondary schools. This is an essential part of the agenda to combat crime by improving the life and employment opportunities of the Borough’s young people.

15. HUMAN RESOURCES IMPLICATIONS

There are no human resources implications arising directly from this report.

16. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS

The new school would reflect the Council’s aim to achieve high standards of design for municipal buildings and would be expected to meet the 21ST Century environmental standards in accordance with the Council’s Procurement Policies.

17. BACKGROUND PAPERS

Short title of document Document Date Contact Officer
Lewisham School Organisational Plan August 2003 Trish Costello
Report to mayor and Cabinet ‘Strategic Review of Secondary Places’ 20 Nov 2002 Mike Brown
Report to Mayor and Cabinet ‘Secondary School Strategy – Consultation on New Secondary School and Expansion of Deptford Green’ 26 Feb 2002 Mike Brown

Report to Mayor and Cabinet ‘New Secondary School Next Steps’ 17 March 2004 Mike Brown

18. CONTACTS

For more information about this report, please contact Steve Gough, Head of Resources, Education & Culture Directorate on 020 8314 8554 or Martin Garlick, Programme Manager, Education and Culture on 020 8314 6866.

Answers to my Council questions: 16 June

Mon, 21 Jun 2004 06:09:00 GMT

Here are the answers to the questions which I asked in Full Council on 16 June. (BTW if people have suggestions for questions for the next meeting on 21 July, please let me know).

QUESTION No.3

LONDON BOROUGH OF LEWISHAM

COUNCIL MEETING

Question by Councillor Milton of the Cabinet Member for Regeneration.

In the event that the new road traffic management scheme for Lewisham Town Centre does not reduce accidents involving pedestrians, will the Council add more and safer pedestrian crossing places?

Response

The current scheme is being implemented on an experimental basis, but it is hoped it will improve the 'informal' crossing areas that already exist and increase traffic/pedestrian awareness. A review will follow implementation with consideration being given as to whether the scheme should be made permanent and what further measures are advisable.

As indicated in the Mayor and Cabinet report on 28th April 2004 the current physical geometry and the high number of bus stops in the High street does not allow the siting of a formal pelican or zebra crossing. The only way we could create enough space to introduce a crossing would be to reduce the number of bus stops. This would subsequently result in a reduction in the number of bus services using the High Street thus reducing accessibility. During the morning peak 18 daytime bus routes totalling 186 buses per hour are scheduled to use the High Street. Of those there are 18 routes and 114 buses that travel northbound and 12 routes and 67 buses that travel southbound. A survey carried out by consultants WS Atkins showed that the highest concentration of pedestrians tended to cross the High Street between Barnstaple Lane and Albion Way. To implement a formal crossing point in this area would most likely mean the loss of bus stop 'V' (closest to the Riverdale entrance) which is served by northbound routes 54, 108, 122, 180, 199, 380. This would mean the loss, the re-routing via Molesworth Street or the redistribution of these routes to the two other existing bus stops ('T' and 'U'). This would entail an extra 35 buses per hour using these stops with their associated passengers waiting, boarding or alighting on the narrowest section of footway in the High Street. This would cause severe pedestrian congestion plus the likelihood of buses 'backing up' from only two bus stops to the library roundabout causing it to 'lock up'. For reasons of good design practice, the southbound bus stop closest to Albion Way (bus stop 'W') would also be lost. This stop serves 7 routes, 47,54,75, 136, 185, 199 and 208 which includes 41 buses per hour during the morning peak. Again this would mean the loss, re-routing or redistribution of these routes.

Under the leadership of the URL board a consultant has now been appointed to carry out an Urban Design Framework and Development Strategy for the Lewisham Gateway project. The tender brief for the study included the consideration of the transport network in and around the town centre and the aptness of routes and the positions of bus stops in light of the major re-development.

[comment by Andrew Milton. Basically, the Council is putting the convenience of the bus companies over pedestrian safety on Lewisham High Street. I'll keep monitoring the position, and keep pressing on this.]

QUESTION No.4 ~

Question by Councillor Milton of the Cabinet Member Housing

When will the Council end the years of neglected maintenance of the blocks at 98 and 100 Hither Green Lane, as illustrated by the photographs on the Internet at http://homepaqe.mac.com/andrew milton/PhotoAlbum38.html

Response

It is recognised that the blocks at 98 and 100 Hither Green Lane are in need of investment and ways of achieving this are included in the Council's Decent Homes Strategy.

There are eight photographs of these blocks shown on the website referred to. Comments on each are as follows.

1) 100 Hither Green Lane Roof and Painting

Funding to renew these roofs was agreed in March 2004 and they will be renewed during 2004/5. In the interim the vegetation shown in the photograph will be removed. (( The blocks are in need of external decoration and having not been decorated since 1993/4 they will be considered for the 2006/7 programme.

2) Graffitti

Graffitti removal is part of the normal cycle of caretaking work and the graffitti shown was removed on 8th June.

3, 4 and 5) Empty Flat

The empty flat shown is still subject to a tenancy. There are complicated issues relating to the tenancy which Circle 33 and other agencies are attempting to resolve and every effort will be made to get the flat reoccupied or the tenancy brought to an end speedily.

6) Rubbish Accumulating

The rubbish identified, which was recently dumped was cleared as part of scheduled cleaning.

7) Fly tipping

Arrangements were in hand to clear these items on 9th June but items are dumped in this area on an almost daily basis.

8) Rubbish in stairwell

This was removed on 7th June. There is continual dumping of rubbish in this stairwell and efforts are being made to identify those responsible and take action to prevent further Occurrences.

{comment by Andrew Milton: Well, managed to get some action here. A demonstration of the power of the Internet?)

Question

What steps will the Council take to ensure that its leisure facilities address better the needs of minority communities? In particular, will it ensure that the Ladywell Leisure Centre - which is now finally reopening - provides women-only swimming sessions in a way which is culturally and religiously appropriate for Muslim women?

Reply

As planned women only sessions will restart at Ladywell Leisure Centre as it has now reopened. There will be three sessions per week, all staffed by female recreation assistants.

The Council has established practice of such provision. Our inclusion plan for all the Council's Leisure Centres is currently being reviewed in partnership with the new Leisure contractors Parkwood following their takeover of CCL the previous contractor.

We have conducted an equalities impact assessment of the proposed new leisure discount card. The assessment highlighted specific cultural and religious issues with regard to Leisure facilities, and these findings are being incorporated into the revised inclusion plan which will be implemented this year.

[comment: I did ask for a translation into something like English of the last sentence, but it wasn't forthcoming]

Council Questions: 16/5/04

Fri, 11 Jun 2004 05:46:00 GMT

Here are my Council questions for 16 June, followed by the press releases about them:

In the event that the new road traffic management scheme for Lewisham
Town Centre does not reduce accidents involving pedestrians, will the
Council add more and safer pedestrian crossing places?

What steps will the Council take to ensure that its leisure facilities
address better the needs of minority communities? In particular, will
it ensure that the Ladywell Leisure Centre - which is now finally
re-opening - provides women-only swimming sessions in a way which is
culturally and religiously appropriate for Muslim women?

When will the Council end the years of neglected maintenance of the
blocks at 98 and 100 Hither Green Lane, as illustrated by the
photographs on the Internet at
http://homepage.mac.com/andrew_milton/PhotoAlbum38.html?

No more “Lewisham Left-Outs”, says Lib Dem Councillor

Lib Dem councillor Andrew Milton was so frustrated at the years of neglect of council flats on Hither Green Lane that he took photographs and posted them on the Internet. He will be asking the Council at its 16 June meeting what it is going to do about it.

‘People on the Hither Green Lane blocks feel they have been forgotten’ says Cllr Milton. ‘They feel like the “Lewisham Left-Outs”. The exteriors of the flats haven’t been painted for at least a dozen years. The roof seems to be growing a shrubbery. Rubbish is accumulating inside and outside the block. I hope these photos shame the Council into action.’

The photographs of the Hither Green Lane blocks are at http://homepages.mac.com/andrew_milton/PhotoAlbum38.html

Lewisham Town Centre: Safety First!

Lewisham Central Lib Dem councillor Andrew Milton is asking the Council to introduce pedestrian crossings in the town centre if the new traffic management scheme does not reduce the current high level of accidents.

“I hope the new traffic management scheme reduces congestion and improves pedestrian safety,” says Cllr Milton, “but I have my doubts. Pedestrian safety must be the absolute priority, and pedestrians only feel safe when they have proper crossing places”.

Leisure facilities must meet the needs of Muslim women

Lib Dem councillor Andrew Milton welcomes the delayed re-opening of the Ladywell Leisure Centre. However, he insists that Lewisham’s leisure facilities must be sensitive to the needs of minorities, including Muslim women.

“At present, Muslim women are going to places like Newham, where they have women-only swimming sessions adapted to their religious and cultural needs,” Andrew observed, “but they should feel able to use local facilities here in Lewisham. That is why I am raising this in the Full Council meeting on 16 June.

“If we want Lewisham’s multicultural community to work, then we all need to be sensitive to each other’s needs”.

ENDS

Lewisham Centre Strategy

Thu, 29 Apr 2004 04:18:00 GMT

If anybody has views on the following questions about the development of Lewisham Town Centre, please let me know.

Lewisham Town Centre Urban Design Framework and Development Strategy

Discussion points for key stakeholders

April / May 2004
_____________________________________________________________

The following bullet points may be useful as an initial prompt, but discussion of other issues will be very welcome.

• Introduction / background to the commission

• Links with Gateway site process and overall progress

• What are the three greatest assets / good things / selling points of the town centre?

• What are the three greatest liabilities / problems / shortcomings of the town centre?

• What are your three top priorities for the town centre?

• Where do you see Lewisham town centre in 10-15 years?

• Views on whether / how particular development sites can meet some of the shortcomings discussed above

• Views on the appropriate scale of development – height, density, mass

• What specific hopes do you have for the Urban Design Framework, and how it can shape the future of the town centre?

• Other ideas and issues

______________________________________________________________

For more information, please contact:

My speech: opposing timetable changeson the Hayes line

Wed, 21 Apr 2004 03:33:00 GMT

This is the speech that I delivered seconding a motion at Lewisham Council oppsing rail timetable changes in SE London, especially the Hayes line:

The worst thing about the train services through Lewisham is when they
> don't keep to timetable. The second worst thing is when they do keep
> to timetable. Or at least to the ever worsening timetables which we
> seem to be getting.
>
> We all have our stories about the first kind of horror, so I'll make
> just the one diversion to mention that this Tueday, as I was coming
> back from Charing Cross after a night at the opera, which I am forced
> to frequent as there is no cinema in the Borough, the train stopped at
> New Cross. We were decanted into the cold night air to find our ways
> home as best we could. Yet again, it was because of signal failures.
>
> It would perhaps be unkind to describe the Strategic Rail Authority's
> proposals for trains in Kent and South-East London as a 'signal
> failure'. It is more like a curate's egg. It is good in parts. We
> acknowledge and welcome such increases in services as are proposed,
> and move swiftly on. But elsewhere, it is on the wrong track.
> Particularly on the Hayes line. The line which has faithfully served
> Sydenham, Catford, and most importantly Ladywell in Lewisham Central
> ward for so many years, and which is now to be treated shamefully.
>
> It is being proposed that on the Hayes line all trains get shunted off
> to Cannon Street. This may not be the end of the World, but it may be
> the end of the line.
>
> Since time immemorial, or at least since there were Liberal
> Governments, which is much the same thing, some trains on the Hayes
> line have gone to Charing Cross. And quite right too. Charing Cross
> is the gateway to the West End from transpontine London. It gets the
> lover of opera to Covent Garden, and the lover of cheap melodrama to
> Westminster. It gets the lover of theatre to Shaftesbury Avenue, the
> lover of love to Soho, and the lover of cinema to, well, a cinema.
> Whither does Cannon Street get you? On a weekend, to plenty of
> nowhere, for plenty of nothing. Cos then the tube doesn't run.
>
> Why does this matter?
>
> Chair, it would wrong always to say four wheels bad, 180 wheels good.
> Cllr Kisicki would stop giving me lifts if I ever said any such thing
> [other than under my breath]. But in a world where motherhood leads
> to over-population, and where apple pie gives you a coronary, it must
> be the only cliche which will stand rational examination to say, under
> the long green shadow cast by Cllr Johnson, that encouraging rail
> travel is a Good Thing. And anything which puts an unjust impediment
> in its way must therefore be a Bad Thing, especially in a borough
> which is already so dependent on railroading
>
> Let us look at some exciting statistics. According to the Ward
> Profiles stuffed into every councillor's pigeon hole, I am a Labour
> councillor for Lewisham Central. With equally approximate
> reliability, and who could ask for more than that in discussing the
> railway system, they also state that half the households in Lewisham
> Central have no car, and that 35% of journeys to work from Lewisham
> Central are by train. The Borough of Lewisham as a whole is not far
> behind Lewisham Central in its dependency on rail transport. Nearly
> 30% of journeys to work are by train.
>
> It would be an exaggeration to say that the SRA's proposals are the
> end of the World, or even that they are the end of the line. But in a
> Borough whose present and future prosperity is so dependent on good
> rail links, they are a diversion too far along the strategic road to
> nowhere mapped out by Dr Beeching all those years ago.
>
> Please tell the SRA what yu think of their proposals and give this
> motion the green light it so richly deserves.
>
>

Rosenkavalier reviews

Mon, 19 Apr 2004 03:38:00 GMT

Der Rosenkavalier, Royal Opera House, London

Four Reviews...
___________________________

By Anthony Holden, April 18, 2004, The Observer

[...] Hard on the heels of its magnificent new Lady Macbeth
of Mtsensk comes a lush revival of Der Rosenkavalier, which
oozes everything that is top drawer about the Royal Opera.
The late John Schlesinger's lavish 1984 production may be
showing its age, but the same cannot be said of either Sir
Charles Mackerras or Dame Felicity Lott, who share the
laurels for a sumptuous musical evening with the hot, young
mezzo of the moment, Angelika Kirchschlager.

Every time I see another Rosenkavalier, I spend half the
evening wishing that Strauss had brandished his blue pencil
more firmly with Hugo von Hofmannsthal over the tedious
antics of Baron Ochs, through which we have to sit in all
three acts - especially the otherwise exquisite first and
last, each of which ends with some of the most ethereally
beautifully music in all opera, all for female voices.

If too much Ochs is the price we have to pay for such
pearls, we must be grateful for small mercies when the
boorish Baron is in hands as sure as those of the Austrian
bass Kurt Rydl. Only towards the end does 'Flott' seem to
wane; throughout Act One, her purity of tone and sureness of
stage presence, at the most touching of moments, reassert
her reputation as one of the great Straussians of our time.

Last seen in Bow Street in the title role of Sophie's
Choice, which even her magnetic performance could not save
from itself, Kirchschlager emerges as a thrilling Straussian
in the making. But that production... well, it's not the
fault of revival director Andrew Sinclair that Schlesinger's
20-year-old staging can no longer be saved by a new lick of
paint.

This is a show so self-consciously lavish as to seem
concept-free alongside Jonathan Miller's recently revived
ENO version, which so poignantly captures the symmetry
between the Marschallin's laments for her lost youth and the
imminent collapse of the Habsburg empire, her private and
public worlds simultaneously falling apart.

Schlesinger was more intent on big-budget grandeur than
fin-de-siècle subtlety, on visually dazzling decadence than
sub-textual double meanings. However, no amount of musical
resuscitation can disguise the fact that this Grand Guignol
assemblage is long past its sell-by date.
___________________________

Not yet the end of the affair
By Edward Seckerson, The Independent, 16 April 2004

Sir Charles Mackerras - that pre-eminent music stylist -
pitches into the now-infamous prelude to Der Rosenkavalier
with almost indecent haste. Behind closed curtains, Marie
Therese (the Marschallin) and her "boy", Octavian, are
making love. Or, in this case, are simply hard at it.
Strauss's whooping horns have rarely climaxed leaving so
little to the imagination.

Mackerras's conducting is one of several very good reasons
for making your way to this fine revival of the late John
Schlesinger's sound, if not especially revealing, 1984
production. William Dudley's sets and Maria Bjornson's
costumes still look plushly, oppressively authentic at a
distance, even though Herr von Faninal's palace in Act II
looks a little as if Cinderella has come early this year. We
know the man has no taste (Faninal, that is) but this is,
surely, stretching the point.

Mackerras's sense of pace and pulse is consistently
invigorating. There are those who pore over this score as if
the 18th century is wearing thin in real time, those for
whom venerable is not vital. Mackerras will have none of
that. His narrative drive is keen and eventful, fizzing with
incidental detail. He reminds us that this is, indeed, a
"Viennese masquerade", as the Marschallin puts it, luxuriant
but animated too. No point in waltz music if you can't dance
to it. And the Royal Opera Orchestra certainly dances.

Felicity Lott's Marschallin has become very much her
signature role. She has found a way to access its heartache
without sentimentality. There is real humour in her
performance. You feel this woman's desire to dash protocol,
to wear the advancing years lightly. "The Field Marshal can
be very quick," she says, and the shrug tells you exactly
what she means. You sense that she has already played out
the dress rehearsal of losing Octavian to a younger woman.
When she so gratefully floats the words "silver rose" at the
end of Act I, Lott leaves you in no doubt at all as to their
significance. The presentation of that rose will seal the
end of the affair.

The bearer, Octavian, is marvellously realised by Angelika
Kirchschlager. You understand how this lustful "puppy" has
brought the first flush of youth back to the Marschallin's
cheeks. Kirchschlager's body language - both as the young
gentleman and as his impromptu alter ego, the chambermaid
"Mariandel" - is rangy and a touch awkward, and well
complemented by a voice that has all the requisite virility
but beauty, too. As Sophie, the object of his new-found
affections, Simone Nold makes her Royal Opera debut. That
love-at-first-sight moment - the glorious but nerve-racking
ascent into the stratosphere of the "presentation" scene -
is intense enough to compromise intonation in the best of
singers. Nold more than compensates later by bringing out
the feistier side of Sophie's nature.

And that's important, if she is to stand up to the oafish
Baron Ochs. The Vienna-born Kurt Rydl plainly brings
long-acquired local knowledge to his portrayal - not as
funny as some, perhaps, but every bit as obnoxious. His
strutting manner and big booming bass are no substitute for
real class, but only he doesn't know it. You can smell his
beery breath on every bottom D.

The gallery of minor characters includes sharply drawn
vignettes from such seasoned performers as Elizabeth Gale in
the role of Sophie's duenna, Marianne. The revival director,
Andrew Sinclair, does a good job of keeping them all in
their place. Which, in the case of the great final trio, can
only be downstage centre, side by side, eyes front. Three
women, one purpose, rapt audience.

To 30 April (020-7304 4000)

___________________________

From a storm of ecstasy to a final, tear-jerking glow
By Geoffrey Norris, The Telegraph, 15/04/2004

The late John Schlesinger's production of Strauss's Der
Rosenkavalier is now 20 years old, but stands up well in
this fifth revival, directed by Andrew Sinclair.

This is a staging that places the opera in the period and
milieu that the composer intended, with plush sets of
18th-century Viennese interiors by William Dudley and
costumes to match by the late Maria Bjornson. Emotionally,
this performance kept enough in reserve for the final "Hab'
mir's gelobt" trio, so that the resolution of the opera's
romantic conundrum had a touching inevitability, the music
radiating a generous-hearted and discreetly tear-jerking
glow.

Watching Dame Felicity Lott as the Marschallin is to
experience something of rare subtlety and human depth on the
operatic stage. She can convey so much with the merest
gesture or glance, with a fading smile or inflection of the
head that, through her, the role almost ceases to be a
theatrical representation but takes on instead the qualities
of palpable life.

There was dignity here, intermingled with joy, reflection
and common sense, that made the Marschallin's complexity all
the more fascinating, her philosophical outlook on the
situation all the more credible and compelling.

By comparison, the Sophie of Simone Nold seemed
two-dimensional. The singing was nice enough, but, on this
evidence, hers is not a voice of any great character, her
acting done as if by numbers.

Angelika Kirchschlager, however, makes a strong and lithe
Octavian, beautifully sung. The slightly perplexing thing
was that she looked and sounded more like a girl when she
was supposed to be a boy, and more boyish when she was
dressed up as a girl.

This rendered the post-coital rough-and-tumble in the first
scene even more ambiguous than it usually is, but disbelief
could easily be suspended in the face of such a rich,
flexible voice and appealing stage presence.

There was certainly a good showing of manly contempt for the
Act 2 coarseness of Baron Ochs, a portrayal of wonderfully
gross self-inflation by Kurt Rydl.

Sir Charles Mackerras whipped the orchestra up to a storm of
ecstasy at the start, and maintained an unflagging grip on
the score, pacing the moments of comedy deftly and allowing
lyrical lines to bloom.

There was plenty of Straussian effulgence here, and plenty
of well-pointed instrumental detail, too, underpinning a
performance that shifted the focus from the general to the
particular, from solo to ensemble with seamless ease.

___________________________

By Erica Jeal, April 15, 2004, The Guardian

Sometimes the old ones are the best. John Schlesinger's 1984
staging of Strauss's poignant and already nostalgic Viennese
comedy is one such: old-fashioned down to its last velvet
swag and boasting countless pairs of knee-breeches, but
still looking sumptuous in the toffee-wrapper colours of
William Dudley's stage-filling sets; and, in Andrew
Sinclair's revival, still intelligent and truthful. Indeed,
Sinclair deserves much credit for taking a rather busy
production and drawing out such compelling individual
performances from its midst.
Central among these, as ever, is Felicity Lott's
Marschallin. Last year the rumour mill ground into action
with reports that this would be her last Covent Garden
appearance, but Lott professed herself surprised to hear
it - and, on the strength of this performance, with good
enough reason. Her soprano may not have quite its old power
and she finds the lowest notes tricky, but once past the
opening few minutes her singing takes on a real glow, and
her spirited portrayal of this complex character, stoic yet
vulnerable, is genuinely moving.

Otherwise, the principals are all German-speakers. To the
role of Octavian, Marschallin's teenage lover, Angelika
Kirchschlager brings a boyish swagger, lots of curled-lip
impetuosity and the best singing of the evening. Simone Nold
is a soft-voiced but sweet Sophie, and Kurt Rydl, all jowls
and eyebrows, makes a scene-stealing comic turn of the bluff
Baron Ochs.

Rosenkavalier is, by any standards, a long opera, and the
story doesn't exactly skip by. Yet here that's hardly
noticeable thanks to Charles Mackerras, who seems determined
to shave at least 10 minutes off the running time, and no
bad thing. He pushes the music onwards from the first
rough-and-tumble moments of the overture - there's
definitely something naughty going on behind that curtain -
and is one step ahead of its mercurial changes of mood. The
orchestra plays fabulously for him; and the exuberance from
the pit feeds into every aspect of the performance.