COUNCIL MEETING - Lambeth · Brixton Top Cats The Mayor welcomed members of Brixton Top Cats, a Sports project for young people established over 20 years ago running weekly sessions

Council Minutes 20.10.04

COUNCIL MEETING

Wednesday 20th October 2004 at 7.00pm

MINUTES

Councillor Irene Kimm in the Chair

COUNCILLORS PRESENT:

A’COURT, R FEWTRELL, J O’CONNELL, PANGLIN, C FITCHETT, K O’MALLEY, HANYANWU, D FOLLIS, GATKINSON, E PARRY, Clive

GENTRY, B PINDAR, JBAKER, J GIESS, RBENNETT, C GRIGG, J REED, SBOTTRALL, A SABBAGH, DBOWRING, G HEATHER, J SANDERS, DBOWYER, P SARGEANT, T

KAZANTZIS, J SAWDON, ACATTERMOLE, N KIMM, I SERWAA, LCLARKE, S SMITH, TCLASON, J LING, RCLYNE, J LUMSDEN, A TRUESDALE, PCRICHTON STUART, M

McCONNELL, R WAKEFIELD, DDERING, S McGLONE, P WARD, SDICKSON, J McHUGH, K WHELAN, C

McKENNA, A WHELAN, JERDMAN, S MALLEY, DEVANS, G MARCHANT, D

MEADER, AMYERSON, J

ABSENT: Councillors Gareth COMPTON, Kevin CRAIG, Jackie MELDRUM,Brian PALMER and Sally PRENTICE, from whom apologies were received, andCouncillors Imran HUSSAIN, Charlotte PARRY and Lib PECK.

Council Minutes 20.10.04 2

1. PROCEDURAL MOTION

MOVED by Councillor Marietta Crichton Stuart, SECONDED by Councillor RussellA’Court and

RESOLVED: That in accordance with Standing Orders 2 & 23, the following timingsand order for the conduct of this meeting be agreed:

Time allotted(approximatefinishing time)

Agenda item

20 minutes(7.20pm)

1. Announcements including reception of Brixton Top Cats

5 minutes(7.25pm)

2. Declarations of Interest3. Minutes (07.07.04)

5 minutes(7.30pm)

4. Petitions

15 minutes(7.45pm)

4. Deputations Deputations to be received:

• Movement for Justice• Housing Transfer Medical Assessments

30 minutes(8.15pm)

5. Questions

45 minutes(9.00pm)

6. Report of the ExecutiveCouncil to hear first from the Leader and Deputy leader of theCouncil and then two opposition speakers. Speakers will thenalternate between the administration and the opposition.

10 minutes(9.10pm)

7. Report of meetings of the Executive

10 minutes(9.20pm)

8. Report of meetings of the Corporate Committee

30 minutes(9.50pm)

9. Notices of motion

5 minutes(9.55pm)

10. Constitution 2004-05: proposed amendments

5 minutes(10.00pm)

11. Proposed amendment of Financial Regulations

Remaining business to fall after guillotine


Notes:

• The Mayor will use her discretion over the specific timings of the meeting, inthe light of any necessary advice from officers.

• The guillotine will fall at 10.00pm.

2. ANNOUNCEMENTS BY THE MAYOR AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE (agendaparagraph 1)

Brixton Top Cats

The Mayor welcomed members of Brixton Top Cats, a Sports project for youngpeople established over 20 years ago running weekly sessions for more than 80participants. The Project had supported 33 young people in their academic studies inthe USA and had achieved great success in the London Youth Games. A formermember of Lambeth Top Cats had been signed up to play for the Chicago BullsBasketball Team.

The Council gave credit to Lambeth Top Cats on its success and for cultivating civicpride and gave assurances that there would be meaningful consultation with allpartners in respect of regeneration proposals for leisure facilities in Lambeth.

Death of former Councillor Hugh Chambers MBE, VRD, RNR

Council officers had heard the previous day of the death of former Councillor HughChambers who served on the Council from May 1964 to May 1998. Hugh Chamberswas first elected as a Councillor for the Streatham Wells Ward which he representeduntil May 1994 when he was then elected as a Councillor in Knights Hill Ward. Heserved as Chief Whip of the Conservative Group for many years and during the period ofthe Conservative Administration from 1968 to 1971 served as Chair of the Libraries &Amenities Committee. He retired as a Councillor in May 1998. Details of the funeralarrangements would be circulated as soon as they were received.

Death of former Councillor Mrs Pam Verden

The Council heard also of the death of former Councillor Mrs Pam Verden who servedas Mayor from May 1980 – May 1981. Councillor Daphne Marchant had representedthe Council at the funeral held at West Norwood Crematorium on 11 October 2004.

The Council stood for a minute’s silence in memory of the deceased.

Appointment of Executive Director of Environment

The Council congratulated Robert Overall on his appointment as Executive Directorfor Environment.


Appointment of Director of Legal & Democratic Services

The Council was advised that Mark Hynes, the newly appointed Head of Legal andDemocratic Services, would be in post in the new year.

3. DECLARATION OF INTERESTS (agenda paragraph 2)

Members made the following declarations and statements in respect thereof (in somecases later during the meeting but before the issues concerned were discussed):

Councillor Subject Interest and Reason

Ashley Lumsden Agenda paragraph 10 Personal - member of theFostering Panel

Bernard Gentry Agenda paragraph 5 (question 6) Personal - employee ofLondon Underground

Bernard Gentry Agenda paragraph 5 (question11) Personal - member ofWRWA

All Members Agenda paragraph 10 (membersallowance scheme

Personal (non prejudicialinterest)

4. MINUTES (07.07.04) (agenda paragraph 3)

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 7th July 2004 beapproved and signed by the Chair as a correct record of the proceedings subject tothe following correction:

Add Councillor Tim Sargeant to the list of members from whom apologies forabsence had been received.

5. PETITIONS AND DEPUTATIONS (agenda paragraph 4)

(a) PETITIONS

Councillor Subject of petition (Ward/Area)

Sabbagh Requesting that environmental improvements be made toCamberwell New Road (Vassall Ward/ North Lambeth Area).


Councillor Subject of petition (Ward/Area)

McGlone Requesting the removal of a disused BT telephone kiosk onthe corner of Brook Drive and Kennington Road. The kiosk iscurrently being used by persons unknown for drug taking etc,causing a nuisance to residents and passersby (PrincesWard/North Lambeth Area).

Kazantzis Requesting that mobile CCTV be introduced in Fontaine Roadand adjoining streets, to prevent further fly-tipping which isbecoming a serious problem (Streatham South Ward/Streatham Area).

Sargeant In protest about the closure of the Post Office at 129Streatham Vale, and to request the Liberal Democrats tosupport this protest (Streatham South Ward/ Streatham Area).

(b) DEPUTATIONS

(i) Deputation from Movement For Justice (MFJ)

From: 38 local people, led by Mr Tony Garde on behalf of the movement for Justiceand Lambeth Unison.

The request for the deputation was made in the following terms:

• Calling on Lambeth Council to reinstate Alex Owolade to comply with theEmployment Tribunal’s findings.

This was a joint deputation by members of the Movement for Justice and theLambeth branch of Unison. A march had been called for 20th November 2004 todemonstrate support for reinstating Alex Owolade, as per the Employment Tribunal’sfindings on the 11th August 2004. The deputation called for the Leader of the Councilto attend the march and reinstate Alex Owolade.

The Mayor thanked the deputation for attending and they left the chamber.

(ii) Deputation on Housing Transfer Medical Assessments

From: 20 local residents, led by Ms Peace Quist

The request for the deputation was made in the following terms:

• Regarding the inaccurate outcome and unfair decisions of housing transfermedical assessments in Lambeth, and the impact of this on black people.


The deputation outlined the need for safe and secure environments for all children,especially those attending Livity school, all of whom had complex learning difficulties.Their home environments needed to be adapted to meet such needs.

The Executive Member for Housing thanked the deputation for attending and statedthat he, along with the Executive Director for Housing, and the Executive Director ofEducation, would meet with the deputation to review the housing allocations policy inthis instance. He stated that this policy had been agreed by Lambeth followingextensive consultation and that some of the policies were legally binding. CouncillorSerwaa responded on behalf of the Opposition.

The Mayor thanked the deputation for attending and they left the meeting.

(iii) The decline of Brixton Market

A deputation was submitted by Brixton street traders in the following terms:

Regarding:

• The complete lack of consultation and involvement by the street tradersin the running of the market, unlike East Street, which is run bySouthwark council with the involvement of councillors and traders

• The dangerous level of congestion in Electric Avenue with itsconsequential effect on the level of crime.

• The market being in serious decline with no apparent concern orunderstanding from the local authority

The deputation will be heard by Brixton Area Committee on 30th November 2004

(iv) Parking and Loading/ Unloading problems in Brixton

A deputation was submitted by local business persons in the following terms:

Regarding parking and loading/unloading problems which were affecting business inAtlantic Road, Cold Harbour Lane, Granville Arcade, Market Row, Electric Avenue,Popes Road, Brixton Station Road and requesting that:

• Cameras be removed from Atlantic Road• Atlantic Road in Brixton should be one way only• One side of Atlantic Road should be reserved for free parking and

loading/unloading purposes.

The deputation will be heard by Brixton Area Committee on 30th November 2004


6. COUNCIL QUESTIONS (agenda paragraph 5)

1. By: Councillor Peter O’Connell (26.07.04)

To: Executive Member for Finance – Councillor Ashley Lumsden

Legal liability claims

What assurance can be given that Lambeth Council has the wisdom to admitswiftly its liability in cases where there is no viable defence to a claim? Is theperformance of this borough, as measured by the ability to avoid excessive legalcosts, much worse than other London local authorities?

Party: Labour

Answer:

1. In providing this answer, the expression “legal liability claims” is taken to referto civil litigation proceedings issued against the Council. This would thereforeencompass claims for breach of contract and claims brought against the Council inthe Employment Tribunal. However, this response is not concerned with personalinjury claims, such as “slipping and tripping”, as these are an insured risk and thushandled by the Council’s insurers and their legal advisers.

2. In addition, by far the largest category of High Court cases in which theCouncil is involved as a party to the proceedings are judicial reviews, ie where theClaimant alleges that the Council (as Defendant) has failed to comply with astatutory obligation and applies to the Court for relief. These commonly involvechallenges to decisions made (or not made) in relation to homelessness andallocations in the field of Housing, community care, asylum seekers, etc in theSocial Services field and issues relating to Special Educational Needs in theEducation field. The Council must, of course, respond to such challengesappropriately and either defend the claims or consent to the application.

3. As part of the processes which were put in place in the Council’s LegalDepartment several years ago in order to achieve ISO 9001 and the ‘Lexcel”quality accreditations from the Law Society, a Practice Management StandardsManual was developed. Among the detailed procedures prescribed in the Manualare those relating to risk management. These involve an assessment, both onreceipt of initial instructions from client Directorates and at regular intervalsthereafter, of the merits of any particular litigation including the risks of defendingproceedings. Further, advice from experienced Counsel may be sought in theevent that significant risks in defending any particular claim have been identified.

4. Legal services are provided to the Council by both the in-house team and anumber of external firms of solicitors. The firms who are contracted to providelegal services to the Council are all quality-accredited and the conditions ofcontract with which they are required to comply incorporate obligations as to risk-assessment, case management and regular reviews which are similar to those setout above which apply to the in-house team.


5. The Council’s Scheme of Delegation has, for many years, included delegationof the following powers to the Borough Solicitor

“The authority to conduct or defend any legal proceedings in any court or tribunalrelating to any of the Council’s functions, and to settle or discontinue suchproceedings (including the compromise of matters where proceedings are, or maybe, contemplated) where appropriate in the best interests of the Council.” Theexercise of the delegated power is thus subject to a “best interest of the Council”test. Consequently it is always incumbent on the Borough Solicitor, or thoseacting on his behalf, to consider whether it is in the Council’s best interests tosettle a matter.

6. The Conditions of Contract which apply to the external firms of solicitors whoalso provide legal services to the Council contain various control and reportingmechanisms to ensure once again that the Council’s best interests are served andunnecessary costs avoided.

7. It is not possible to make direct comparisons of the Council’s expenditure onlegal costs incurred in defending litigation claims with that of other local authoritiesbecause such comparative information is not available. In any event, given thevarying nature and numbers of cases between authorities, such information wouldbe of limited value. Nevertheless, there is certainly no evidence or experience tosuggest that Lambeth’s performance is worse than other London Boroughs.Moreover the Council can be assured from the above information that thenecessary quality and practice management procedures are in place to avoidunnecessary legal costs.

8. Finally, members may be interested to know that a series of new performanceindicators are being developed in relation to Legal Services, which will bepublished monthly in the Corporate Services Performance Digest. Furthermore,the ODPM has recently consulted authorities on its proposed new BVPI’s for 2005-06 and one of these is: “the percentage of legal claims by members of the publicagainst the authority which have been successfully defended as a proportion of alllegal claims by members of the public.”

9. Although such a measure is very generalised and somewhat simplistic andwould not reflect the complexities of any particular court case, the informationwhich will need to be gathered in order to provide an overall picture of the“success rate” is likely to include the level of legal costs incurred in defendingclaims.

Supplementary question:

Although you say there is no evidence to suggest that the Council’s performanceis worse than other London boroughs, equally there is nothing to suggest that theCouncil’s performance is better than other London boroughs. How are casesconcerning excessive legal costs conceded? There is little to encourageconfidence in the actions of the Council to settle late claims. Can you give anindication of the risk assessment criteria which are considered before initiating any


action? How many cases were won and lost during 2002/3 and 2003/4?

Supplementary answer:

If you have evidence to suggest that the Council’s performance is worse thanother London Boroughs I would be happy to consider it if you provide me with thedetails. In terms of the number of cases won/lost, I would have provided thatInformation if the question had asked for it.

2. By: Councillor Sally Prentice (20.09.04)

To: Executive Member for Community Safety, Regeneration & Transport –Councillor Andrew Sawdon

Pay & display Bays in Ashmere Grove, SW2

Could the Executive Member explain why it has not been possible to include arecommendation from Ms Christine Jones, Secretary of the Bedford/HetheringtonCommunity Association, to relocate the pay and display bays from Ashmere Groveto the north side of Kepler Road as set out in her letter to the Planning DepartmentNorth Team Case Officer, dated 8 March 2004 in response to the development at31-35 Linom Road?

Party: Labour

Answer:

In the absence of Councillor Prentice, this question fell.

3. By: Councillor Charles Anglin (09.09.04)

To: Deputy Executive Member for Environment: Community &Regeneration – Councillor Darren Sanders

Withdrawal of PCSOs from Brixton Tube Station

Why have the PCSOs previously stationed outside Brixton Tube Station, whichwere such a high profile & successful component of Operation Refresh, beenwithdrawn and what action is being taken to either have them re-instated orreplaced by the British Transport Police?

Party: Liberal Democrat

Answer:

We are working with Lambeth Police, Brixton Sector London Underground and TfLto improve the partnership working in relation Brixton Tube. The PSCOs have notbeen withdrawn, however they are being used to carry out other patrols in andaround the area. A regular tasking meeting takes place between the partnersagencies to look at operational issues and the management of the underground


environment remains a central factor as part of this agenda.


The removal of PCSOs has resulted in the return of tickets touts outside BrixtonUnderground Station during the day. A full warden network across the borough isneeded. Can you give assurances that any proposals from officers will result in acomprehensive warden scheme with more than one funding source includingNRF?


There is concern regarding all transport hubs within Lambeth and the Council isworking in partnership with London Underground. Regular Warden/CCTV liaisonmeetings are held and you are welcome to attend. The Council is committed towarden schemes from different funding sources including NRF and LOF.

4. By: Councillor Dave Malley (27.09.04)

To: Executive Member for Environment – Councillor Clare Whelan

Streatham Common dog show

Why did the Council recently cancel the Streatham Common dog show at the lastminute, to the great disappointment of Bengo and Sally the boxers - and manyhundreds of people? (see The Post, 23 September)

Party: Labour

Answer:

I too was very disappointed when this year’s Streatham Common dog show wascancelled. When the issues relating to the show were brought to my attention inthe few days preceding the event I immediately tried to help ensure the show wasstill able to go ahead. Unfortunately the event organisers had not completed theevents application form or provided the Council with proof that the required publicliability insurance was in place two working days before the event was due to takeplace. At such a late stage there was insufficient time for the parks licence to beissued in accordance with the events strategy.

The Council’s contractor, Cleanaway, was not able to provide the barriers requiredfor the event to go ahead without a parks licence and the event was subsequentlycancelled. I had in fact hoped to attend the show and very much hope that theshow will resume again next year. I believe this is the type of community event theCouncil would like to see more of and look forward to working with the Friends ofStreatham Common to ensure the event goes ahead next year.

Officers are currently exploring a number of improvements to the current eventstrategy and will be discussing the changes with Friends Groups and EventOrganisers over the coming months. A meeting was held with Friends Groups and


a number of useful suggestions came out of that session. All Councillors havebeen invited to attend a meeting to give their point of view on how the strategy orits implementation can be improved and I hope Councillor Malley will be able toattend.


This is not the first time there have been problems with arrangements for eventsheld at on Streatham Common. The event was widely publicised well in advanceso any necessary paperwork could have been completed beforehand. Canofficers liaise with event organisers to ensure that future events are not cancelled?


Officers are in the process of reviewing the procedures for arranging events inLambeth’s parks and with a view to simplifying the process. A meeting has beenarranged for 27 October and any practical suggestions for improvements would bewelcomed.

5. By: Councillor Dan Sabbagh (04.10.04)


Lambeth Opportunities Fund

Can you supply, in writing, the criteria by which the money in theLambeth Opportunities Fund was allocated? Can you explain by whatprocess successful schemes were selected, and how thecriteria applied in the case of each successful scheme? And finally,can you provide details as to how much of the Fund has been spent to date?

Party: Labour

Answer:

First we saw Labour Councillors oppose the Lambeth Opportunities Fund in totalwith their counter proposal to spend the money in other ways. Secondly LabourCouncillors have criticised the allocation of money in North Lambeth, Streathamand Norwood saying that some of that money should instead be spent in Brixton.Thirdly, Councillor Sabbagh considered calling in the projects funded by LambethOpportunities Fund and he will recall that I wrote to him on 2 August asking him totell me which schemes he opposed. He then chose not to tell me which schemeshe opposes and withdrew his threats of call in.

In conclusion I am sure that Councillor Sabbagh will already know that the criteriafor the Lambeth Opportunities Fund were set by the Executive on 10 May 2004and writing was the principal method for doing this. However I am happy to leaveopen my offer to Councillor Sabbagh to investigate any schemes that he wishes tooppose – perhaps he will indicate them to me in his supplementary question?



I am not opposed to the principle of the LOF but could you please advise me howthe eligibility criteria for funding were agreed and outline the bidding process.


The outcomes are what is important. The Lambeth Opportunities Fund will makea difference to people’s lives. The criteria for allocating funding is set out in theminutes of the Executive meeting held in May 2004. Councillor Sabbaghsubmitted a letter outlining his intention to call in the decision but no call-in wassubmitted. Councillor Sabbagh is frustrated that the Administration is spending£15m on projects. Unless Councillor Sabbagh wishes to identify particular LOFprojects which should not proceed, all schemes listed will be progressed.

6. By: Councillor Bernard Gentry (09.08.04)


Weight restrictions: Transport for London and buses

What action is the Council taking to ensure TfL London Buses and bus operatingcompanies comply with weight restrictions Lambeth has imposed on roads in theBorough?

Party: Conservative

Answer:

As you will currently know the Council is not the enforcer for moving trafficoffences, including enforcement of weight restrictions, The Council has no legalpower of enforcement. That power rests only with the police. The fact that whilethe Council can make such orders we have no legal power to enforce them alwayshas to be borne in mind when deciding whether or not to make a traffic orderregarding moving traffic. This is particularly so, because it is well known that thePolice do not prioritise such enforcement. In this case therefore the Councilofficers, work through its liaison mechanisms with Transport for London buses andthe bus operators.

As a result of an objection received from London Buses (over the need to allowbuses to use North Street at times of essential operational diversions) at the timethe Traffic Order was made, buses are exempt from the weight restriction there.However you will be aware that the operators have been using North Street for outof service buses and not strictly for operational reasons. The issue was raised ata meeting of the Transport Liaison meeting at the end of July and officers havebeen pressing LT Buses since for an assurance that the practice would stop. LTBuses were warned that if this could not be solved by agreement the Councilwould consider amending the Traffic Order to remove the exemption for buses.

At a meeting on the 1st October attended by the Head of Transport Planning &


Strategy, London Transport Buses’ liaison manager confirmed that they had giveninstructions to the bus operator to stop using North Street for out of service buses.The operator has confirmed that that instruction had been given to drivers. If overthe next 3 – 4 months there is monitoring evidence that buses have not stoppedusing the road except for genuine operation purposes the Council will considerstarting the process of amending the Traffic Order.

Supplementary question

TfL have only sought exemptions to enable them to run out of service buses onroads by seeking exemptions to weight restrictions. How will this be addressed?

Supplementary answer

The situation can be monitored by Councillors and local residents. If there are anyfurther abuses of the weight restriction exemptions, the Council can take action toamend the existing Traffic Order.

7. By: Councillor Jackie Meldrum (04.10.04)


Lambeth’s Post Offices

In light of the recent cross party support given to Lambeth’s local Post Officeswould it be timely for your Finance officers to work with the Post Office on ascheme to enable all those who want to use their local Post Office to pay anycouncil bills or fees in cash? By negotiating a deal which takes into account allcash transactions from departments throughout the Council, a win-win outcome ispossible that will:

1) minimise costs to the Council and encourage income collection2) give local people choice & convenience3) help the sustainability of local Post Offices.

Party: Labour

Answer:

In the absence of Councillor Meldrum, this question fell.

8. By: Councillor Helen O’Malley (04.10.04)

To: Executive Member for Education – Councillor Anthony Bottrall

Clapham Manor Primary School

What progress has there been towards the finalisation of the compulsory purchaseorder (for land zoned for school use) for the playground for the Clapham ManorPrimary School; a school which is currently being expanded and which has thesmallest land area of any Lambeth primary school?


Party: Labour

Answer:

The Council has had to reconsider the assumptions on which the original CPOplans were based. New options are now being explored and officers would bepleased to give you a further background briefing in confidence.


What degree of urgency will be given to the CPO? The school has 420 pupils aswell as a nursery and Childrens Services are also being provided from the site.This extra playground space is much needed.


We need to protect the Council’s interests. Things are very complicated and wedo not want to prejudice the Council’s position in respect of negotiations. I wouldurge Councillor O’Malley to seek a briefing from Officers who can provide her withfurther information.

9. By: Councillor Clive Bennett (05.10.04)

To: Leader of the Council – Councillor Peter Truesdale

Civil Emergencies

What steps have been taken to ensure the borough is prepared for civilemergencies?


Answer:

The Council is committed to providing a 24/7 response to major incidents and civilemergencies in line with the requirements laid down by legislation and theexpectations of its residents, communities, businesses and visitors. Our responseis guided by the Lambeth Emergency Response Plan, which has been devisedbased on a hazard assessment of the borough. The Council’s planning for majoremergencies is not seen as a specialised or separate function, but is be built onand integrated into the everyday structure and systems within the organisation.

On the bigger picture Lambeth is working in partnership with a range oforganisations including the emergency services and the London Resilience Team(Government Office for London) and the other London boroughs in ensuring thatwe are fully integrated into the pan London plans for major incidents.

Within the Environment Directorate the Emergency Response Planning Managerleads on the borough’s planning aspects, including inter-agency liaison, providing


and managing training and exercising and the maintenance of the response plan.The emergency response is provided by a team of trained officers, from across therange of Council services. On receipt of the initial call a duty controller is notifiedand leads on the incident.

They mobilise a duty officer to the scene (local authority liaison officer) and dutyofficers from all the service directorates to a control room from where the incidentis managed. These officers will then summon appropriate additional support toassist our response. This may include the establishment and running of a restcentre for persons displaced by the incident, this is carried out in partnership withthe WRVS. The emergency response team regularly meet and train together.

The Council has a 24/7 call handling facility which would initially process theemergency call. Response time for incidents will vary depending upon the time ofday that the incident occurs. Obviously our out of normal office hours responsewill take longer than during the working day as officers have to be called fromhome. As part of the incident response, arrangements are in place, through thecommunication team, to ensure that regular and full information on the incident isprovided to affected residents. As part of this process the Leader and wardCouncillors from the area would also be briefed.

Our response will evolve around• Maintaining statutory services at an appropriate level where possible.

• Providing support for the emergency services and those engaged in theimmediate response.

• Providing support services for the community and others affected by theemergency.

• Facilitating the community’s recovery and return to normality.

• Providing mutual aid to our neighbouring boroughs (when requested).

Our role will include� Welfare for People in distress� Emergency Rest Centres� Finance� Feeding� Re-housing (short and long term)� Clothing� Counselling (short and long term)� Environmental Protection

� to protect and advise people� to protect the environment

� Co-ordination of Mutual Aid from other Local Authorities� Co-ordination of Voluntary Sector Support supporting the emergency services� Dangerous structures� Clearance of debris� Repairs to the infrastructure


Lambeth Emergency Planning Forum

The Lambeth Emergency Planning Forum was formed in the year 2000 followingthe successful partnership working around the Millennium. It brings together thevarious agencies in the borough who could be involved in an emergency or itsresponse. The meetings are held four times a year and discuss local emergencyrelated issues. The chairmanship and all the membership support is provided byLambeth’s Emergency Planning Manager.

Membership currently includes all the emergency services, hospital A&Edepartments, Lambeth PCT, the Health Protection Agency, Network Rail, LondonUnderground, London Buses, London Eye, Royal Festival Hall, Surrey CricketClub, Shell and other major employers and some of the voluntary agencies in theborough.

Next steps

Work is currently being undertaken to prepare the borough’s emergency plans andservice for the introduction of the Civil Contingencies Act 2005 which will become‘live’ next April.

In terms of recent operational changes, the Emergency Planning Manager will berelocating to the 4th floor at Blue Star House. This will enable better/improvedsupport for emergency planning. A growth item is identified in the Star Chamberto help with mainstreaming emergency planning and provide additional officersupport for training and information exchange across the organisation.

Identified in the this years work plan is a series of Road Shows to inform staff andmembers of what the council is doing around preparedness for a major incident. Itis also intended that these Road Shows will give a general overview of emergencyplanning. The balance here is to give confidence in terms of our approach toemergency planning but not to alarm officers/members unnecessarily. Officers areplanning to deliver these Road Shows in February and March of next year. Therewill be a separate Road Show for members in the New Year.

Finally, the management team is committed to ensuring that we have adopted arobust set of procedures and processes and that we are transparent (as much aswe can be) in our approach to emergency planning within the authority. With thisin mind, the emergency planning team will be undertaking the Audit Commission’sself assessment exercise early in the New Year. This diagnostic provides aframework against which authorities can review current performance and identifyareas for improvement in light of the Civil Contingencies Bill. A formal assessmentwill then be undertaken in October or November to confirm our preparedness.


Can you give assurances that Members will be informed of the date of the AuditCommission Self Assessment Exercise and will also be able to have an input?



A date for the self-assessment has not yet been set but details can be sent toMembers. The situation is kept under constant review in the wake of theSeptember 11 terrorist acts. There is always potential for a civil emergency andthe Council’s procedures are periodically reviewed.

10. By: Councillor Kevin Craig (05.10.04)


Hubert Grove Bridge and Personal Safety of Lambeth Residents

Following a previous Deputation to Full Council, specific briefing meetings, receiptof petitions and personal assurances given by Councillor Sawdon that this issuewould be given his serious attention, what progress can he report to the people ofNorth Clapham with regard to the improvement of the footbridge at one end ofHubert Grove, SW9 and its dilapidated, crime inducing state? What specificallyhas he personally done on this issue since it was first raised with him by WardCouncillors and hundreds of local residents in 2002?

Party: Labour

Answer:

In the absence of Councillor Craig, this question fell.

11. By: Councillor Paul McGlone (05.10.04)

To: Member for the Western Riverside Authority - Councillor BernardGentry (and on behalf of Councillor Marcus Mayers)

Western Riverside Authority

Would Lambeth's two members on the Western Riverside Authority please outlinefor Councillors the internal dispute between the Chair of the WRWA (CouncillorLevitt of Kensington and Chelsea) and the Clerk of the Authority (The ChiefExecutive Officer of Wandsworth Council)? Have Lambeth's representativessought to take advantage of this situation? Have they appointed to the officer coreof the WRWA a Senior Lambeth Officer?

Party: Labour

Answer:

The dispute is not between the Chair of the Authority and the Clerk (Gerald Jones)but between the WRWA and Wandsworth Council. The dispute is concerning theWRWA’s power of direction over municipal waste.


Because the Clerk and Treasurer to the WRWA are senior officers fromWandsworth Council, the WRWA agreed that during the dispute there could be aconflict of interest for the officers and accordingly agreed to suspend them for theduration of the dispute.

The WRWA have set up an appointments sub committee to select suitablecandidates from the constituent boroughs to fill these roles for the duration of thedispute. In addition to this there is a Best value Review about to start on thecorporate governance of the WRWA which, as part of its terms of reference, willlook into how the authority receives its help from the lead borough (Wandsworth)and look at alternatives.


Can you seek assurances that Lambeth Officers will be put forward for any of theposts to support the WRWA?


The Council’s representatives on the WRWA have indicated their wish for officersto take on a more proactive role and the future viability of the WRWA also needsto be taken into account.

12. By: Councillor Charles Anglin (09.09.04)

To: Deputy Executive Member for Environment - Community Safety &Regeneration – Councillor Darren Sanders

Community Coalition

What work is being undertaken with local faith groups and leaders to establish acommunity led coalition to combat gun & drug crime in the borough?


Answer:

Joint work is being undertaken with Faith Groups towards Peace Week, which istaking place week commencing 15th November. This will include a range ofactivities and events across the borough, culminating in an event at the Assemblyhalls on 22nd November. The council has also appointed a full time Faith Co-ordinator who is working with faith groups to develop joint programmes.

The community safety team are developing and implementing a tri boroughprogramme to tackle gun, gang and drug crime in the borough, with the fullinvolvement of the CPCG, faith groups and Trident. In addition we areundertaking specific work with Muslim leaders.



I am concerned that there were no officers working with faith groups although Ihave raised this issue between May and September. An officer was subsequentlyappointed in September but no work was done with faith groups as it was too lateto involve then in the process.


A Faith Group Co-ordinator was appointed in September, a pilot scheme is beingrun for this year and your concerns will be raised with officers. The coalition iscommunity led and it is important to have project champions and it would bewelcomed if Councillor Anglin wished to serve in this role.

13. By: Councillor John Kazantzis (05.10.04)

To: Executive Member for Housing – Councillor Keith Fitchett

Work Schemes Agreed by Neighbourhood Forums

Please could the Executive Member for Housing give a categorical assurance thatno major works scheme previously agreed by residents at Neighbourhood Forums,will be either cancelled or delayed as a result of reframing.

Party: Labour

Answer:

Councillor Kazantzis was present at the Tenants Council meeting on the 23rd

September when I gave assurances that all agreed schemes would be honoured.I am happy to repeat that assurance to Council.


I would reiterate my thanks for the answer although it contradicts advice given bysenior officers stating that schemes will be prioritised.


Committed schemes for the current financial year will be honoured but there maybe some reprioritisation of schemes for future years.

14. By: Councillor Steve Reed (05.10.04)

To: The Leader of the Council – Councillor Peter Truesdale

Parking in Lambeth

I wrote to you on 14th July 2004 asking when you would level with the people ofLambeth over parking. I received a holding response but have still not had a full


reply. Car owners across Lambeth want to know whether the Administration isgoing to follow the recommendations of the cross-party Parking Commission andrenegotiate the parking contract to remove the parking thresholds which act asfinancial incentives to the contractor to issue parking tickets. Residents who owncars want to know: is the Administration going to implement fully all therecommendations of the Parking Commission?

Party: Labour

Answer:

You will undoubtedly recall that in our letter to you of the 16th September theDeputy Leader of the Council and I indicated that a full response to the ParkingScrutiny Commission report was being worked on and would be shared withscrutiny commission members first. You will also recall that you were offered abriefing once the work on the response was completed. While the Executive’sParking Improvement Plan in response to the Parking Commission’srecommendations have not only been shared with the Commission members butalso with the Environmental Services & Regeneration Scrutiny Sub-Committee on13th October 2004, I note the offer of a briefing has still not been taken up.


Please can you explain the difference between a threshold and a financialincentive to a resident who has received parking tickets from an incentivisedparking contractor?


This area is very complicated. The regulations need to be properly enforced andthis is reflected in the Parking Digest. The findings of the Controlled ParkingCommission will be considered by both the Executive and the EnvironmentalServices & Regeneration Scrutiny Sub-Committee.

The remaining questions were not debated at the meeting.

15. By: Councillor Tim Sargeant (05.10.04)

To: Deputy Executive Member for Regeneration & Community Safety –Councillor Darren Sanders

Crime in Streatham South Ward

Can the Deputy Executive Member for Crime please comment on the followingCCTV related issues in Streatham South Ward;(a). Is there CCTV, mobile or fixed, in Streatham Vale?(b). Is there CCTV, mobile or fixed, on Greyhound Lane by Streatham CommonStation?(c). How much has been spent since May 2002 in each financial year on theaccompanying paraphernalia i.e. signage, stand-alone-posts, consultation with


local residents, and testing equipment?(d). If CCTV has yet to be installed, when will it be?(e). If CCTV is not to be installed, why not?(f). If the machinery is defective, why did the Council spend the money it did andwhat measures are being put in place to recover such losses?(g). If CCTV, fixed or mobile, is not planned to be placed at either of the twolocations, will the Deputy Executive Member apologise to the people of StreathamSouth and Streatham Vale for giving the impression that this Council would carryout the previous Labour Council's promise to place CCTV in the area and formisleading local residents ever since that CCTV was, in fact, up and running?

Party: Labour

As always, I am grateful to Councillor Sargeant for his question. I also noteCouncillor Kazantzis’ motion calling for ‘the soon to be acquired Petard mobileCCTV camera’ to be put in Fontaine Road, Braxted Park and Covington Way,which are not to my knowledge in Streatham Vale. Given scarce resources, Iwould be grateful for clarification on whether it is the Vale or these roads myStreatham South colleagues believe deserves CCTV more.

As he will know, a presentation on CCTV was made to the Streatham AreaCommittee on 28 July, a meeting he could not attend. I note with interest that thereport to that meeting said that the original survey for a mobile system of six CCTVcameras across Lambeth was conducted in 1999/2000. I note with even moreinterest that “a condition of the tender was for the whole system to be installed andoperational by April 2001 at the latest.” (Page 2, point 2.1).

Councillor Sargeant asks me to apologise for not fulfilling a Labour Councilpromise. Yet it was Labour itself that failed to fulfil its own promises – I lookforward to an apology from them. However, this is not an isolated incident onCCTV. As he knows, that Labour Council set aside money to build CCTVcameras without budgeting for how they could be maintained or monitored.Indeed, in their last budget, they allocated only 6 months’ worth of CCTVprovision. This compares with the current administration, which has a robustcontract where any new camera requests must be accompanied by a breakdownof how revenue and capital costs will be met.

He will also be aware that this administration allocated £40,000 to mobile CCTV inthe Lambeth Opportunities Fund. As his party feels that the allocation of money inthis fund did not reflect the priorities of people in Lambeth, I can only conclude thatLabour believes that people do not want mobile CCTV. Officers tell me that,across Lambeth, £3000 has been spent on signage since 2000. I have not beengiven costs of the 2000 residents’ survey on CCTV in Lambeth. As far as testingis concerned, this is included as part of the overall service contract.

On the equipment, Councillor Sargeant will know that Streatham Vale, StreathamCommon BR, the junction with Ellison Road, Greyhound Lane by StreathamCommon station and elsewhere in Greyhound Lane form five of Lambeth’s 33locations for mobile CCTV. I think this shows the council’s commitment to makingsure that Streatham Vale is covered by CCTV. However, as the 28 July Area


Committee report also states, the police ultimately decides where the mobileCCTV cameras go. Officers tell me the police have no plans to deploy any mobilecameras to Streatham Vale for the foreseeable future. If he wishes the police toapologise for this, I am happy to relay his concern.

16. By: Councillor Jim Dickson (05.10.04)

To: Executive Member for Environment – Councillor Clare Whelan

Flooding in Herne Hill

When can Councillors expect to see a final version of the report into the seriousflooding which took place in Herne Hill in late April 2004? And will the Councilcommit to providing funding to support any recommendations made in the report toprevent a recurrence of the flooding?

Party: Labour

Answer:

There are 2 main strands to officers’ work associated with the serious flooding thatoccurred in the Herne Hill area, and adjoining parts of Southwark, at the end ofApril 2004. The first strand is an assessment of the adequacy of the road gullysystem (which is the responsibility of the Council) in the area and work todetermine the effect of run-off from Brockwell Park on the adjacent area.

An independent consultant has been commissioned to undertake this work. Theconsultant’s final report on the road gully system is expected to be availabletowards the end of October and its contents will be outlined in a report to BrixtonArea Committee in November. Although the consultant has undertaken somepreliminary work on the drainage arrangements in Brockwell Park, the scope of theoriginal brief has been extended following feedback from residents and businessesaffected by the flood – involving a walkabout I attended. It is anticipated that theNovember report to the BAC will include an update of the consultants work on thesituation with regard to Brockwell Park.

The second strand relates to the adequacy of the public sewer system, which isprovided and operated by Thames Water Utilities (TWU), in the area. Officersadvise that this is the key piece of work and that the adequacy of the road gullysystem, at times of heavy storm, is a secondary issue since the capacity of theroad gully system is restricted by the capacity of the sewer system (into which itdischarges).

It is essential that TWU provide detailed information about the capacity of theirsystem and how it operates together with information about the likely risk offlooding in the future and details of their plans to address any flooding risk. Seniorofficers, together with those from Southwark who have identical objectives, havebeen pressing TWU for this information, at meetings and in writing, since May thisyear.


Up until a meeting on the 14th September, TWU had been unable or unwilling toprovide the information requested. At the meeting on the 14th they agreed to do soand have since provided an initial response. Officers are currently examining thatresponse and will be seeking further information/clarification in areas. It isanticipated that the report to the BAC in November will summarise TWU’sresponse. TWU have also indicated that they are willing to attend a meeting of theBAC and arrangements are being made to secure their attendance at the meeting.

It is essential that TWU provide detailed information about the capacity of theirsystem and how it operates together with information about the likely risk offlooding in the future and details of their plans to address any flooding risk. Seniorofficers, together with those from Southwark who have identical objectives, havebeen pressing TWU for this information, at meetings and in writing, since May thisyear. Up until a meeting on the 14th September, TWU had been unable orunwilling to provide the information requested. At the meeting on the 14th theyagreed to do so and have since provided an initial response. Officers are currentlyexamining that response and will be seeking further information/clarification inareas. It is anticipated that the report to the BAC in November will summariseTWU’s response. TWU have also indicated that they are willing to attend ameeting of the BAC and arrangements are being made to secure their attendanceat the meeting.

It would be premature to give any commitment to provide funding to support therecommendations relating to road gullies until the report has been received andthe financial implications quantified. The Council is committed to seekingassurances from TWU that they recognise the extent of the flooding and will takethe appropriate action to ensure that the risk is addressed. However, the Councilcannot give any financial commitment to progress or contribute to works to thepublic sewer system - in the knowledge that it is TWU that have a duty to providedrainage services.

17. By: Councillor Sharon Ward (05.10.04)


Threshold/Incentive linked to profits

In a contract, what is the difference between a "threshold" linked toprofits and an "incentive" linked to profits?

Party: Labour

Answer:

I am not able, personally to answer a general question on contractual law,However it may be that you are thinking about parking. If so I think you areconfusing the expectation that the contractor does not allow their activity to fallbelow the expected levels, with the idea that the contractor is given a profitincentive to go beyond the expected levels of activity – which is not the case.


There are indeed expected levels of activity These are based on officerassessment of the historic known rate at which infringements are committed, andthat it is correct that the contractor is expected to achieve that level of issue ofpenalties, as one of the performance indicators by which the contract is monitored.I am also told that there is an expected productivity level, which gives the numberof parking attendants expected to be deployed, an indicator which shows theefficiency of the contractors operation.

My understanding on incentives, has always been that there is a stick but nocarrot, that is to say that if the contractors fall below the expected levels of activitythen there is a financial penalty, but there is no bonus to the contractor forexceeding that level - the contractor has no incentive to go beyond any threshold.

The contract as you will know is in essence an industry standard contract which iscommended by the British Parking Association, and which has been disclosed, Iunderstand to the Leader of the Opposition Councillor Steve Reed. It doesprovide that payment reductions according to the Schedule of Rates will beimposed if the deployment levels or average productivity levels have fallen belowthe defined thresholds. Insofar as this provides an incentive to the contractor notto put the required number of people onto the streets, and not to allow theirefficiency level to fall, then it no-way contradicts the statements that there is nofinancial incentive to go beyond the expected level of activity.

18. By: Councillor Jonathan Myerson (05.10.04)


Blue Badges

As you are well aware, your department is currently ruthlessly pursuing parkingfines against two of my disabled constituents, totalling well over £1,000 - in oneinstance, for a Blue Badge accidentally placed the wrong way up on thedashboard. Following repeated representations, you have refused to remit thesefines. And now it comes to my attention that another (able bodied) constituent'sparking fine was recently remitted because, and I quote: "the evidence nowavailable of a pet in distress means that the PCN is no longer valid" (refLH33378679). Does Lambeth now operate a Dogs Before Disabled Policy when itcomes to mitigating parking fines?

Party: Labour

Answer:

Where a driver who has received a penalty, holds that it was unjustified andwishes to challenge it, this is considered through the representation and appealsprocess set out under the legislation, and this includes appeal to the parkingadjudicator who is independent of the Council. I would be surprised if a case of apenalty issued for displaying a blue badge upside down had gone as far as the


adjudicator, and the appeal not been allowed.

You refer to representations, supported by your self, that I should instruct thatfines be remitted. In fact although I do personally receive a number of approachesfrom people who consider that I should have the power to make the decisionpersonally whether parking fines should be cancelled, and should exercise thatpower in their favour, I do not in fact decide cases personally, and I have statedthis in public, at the parking commission. Such challenges, including cases ofmitigation, are dealt with through the appeals process.

While not deciding individual cases, I do lead on matters of general policy. As Ihave previously stated there have been considerable difficulties with theinternational blue badge system, and acknowledged theft, fraud and abuse of bluebadges – indeed some boroughs such as Camden simply opt out of the BlueBadge system altogether. Because of theses concerns, I have initiated a review,which has resulted in the introduction of a new additional scheme for peoplequalifying for blue-badges who are car-drivers. Under this new scheme the drivermay choose to have an additional badge including their vehicle registrationnumber, which they can use to park their car overnight, and this scheme reducesthe incidence of theft and the worry of theft of blue badges.

I would be surprised if a case of a penalty issued for displaying a blue badge faceout but upside down had gone as far as the adjudicator, and the appeal not beenallowed. Although on the basis of your question, any outstanding penalty will notbe pursued, in any event I would welcome your submitting details of the case,again if necessary, to the Director of Environment, so that the photos which shouldhave been taken by the Parking attendant, can be reviewed, alongside anydecision letter by the adjudicator, to see if lessons can be learned.

The Council obviously does not operate a “dogs before disabled policy. Eachrepresentation case is dealt with on its merits. The Parking Investigation officerwill always consider on its merits any representation that there had been anemergency, and this approach is adopted by all local authorities.

In these circumstances, investigation officers would expect evidence of theemergency, usually a letter or bill from the vet. They also take into accountprevious history to make sure the "excuse" has not been used before. Although itis not possible, once a penalty has been remitted to reverse that decision on theintervention of a ward Councillor, I will, nevertheless, if you provide proper detailsask officers to review that case, and to set down in writing their findings to us.

19. By: Councillor Donatus Anyanwu (05.10.04)

To: Executive Member for Environment - Councillor Clare Whelan

Brixton Market

Can the Executive Member tell me what the Administration is doing to improve theBrixton market and does she agree that for the interest of the community, it isimportant for the council to appoint a coordinator for the Brixton Market in order to


maintain its vibrant nature.

Party: Labour

Answer:

The problems with the Brixton Market are deep rooted in that the area has beenthe subject of neglect over the past 20 years. The market area consists of a busystreet-trading environment bordered by commercial outlets with some residentialaccommodation above them. Furthermore, there are closed private markets inter-linking the street markets and shops. In close proximity to the market are threetransport hubs (Brixton Tube, Brixton Station and multiple bus stops), whichdramatically add to the pedestrian traffic at key times of the day.

The property in the area is generally in a poor unkempt condition, particularly therailway viaduct, which cuts through the heart of Brixton and the market area. Overthe years there has been a lot of speculation about investment being forthcoming,which has to date not materialised. This has led to expectation and hopes beingraised but followed by disappointment.

Despite all the problems Brixton Market itself remains a busy commercial area,which is being helped in the following ways:-

• A pedestrian crossing between Electric Avenue and Popes Road has helpedlink the market environments together.

• Pedestrianisation has been introduced into Brixton Station Road, so enhancingthe trading potential along that area of the market.

• The market office has good links with the Parking department and enforcementis being developed. The police and the parking contractor have undertakenjoint patrols to counter threats and so enable more effective enforcement.

• The conveniences in Popes Road have been completely refurbished and theBritish Toilet Association has been commissioned to provide an assessmentreport on the work undertaken.

• In partnership with members and market trader representatives’ new pitch feecharges have been introduced in Brixton Station Road to stimulate new tradersjoining the market establishment.

• The pitch fees introduced in April 2004 were below inflation.• A vote of traders was held last year on the introduction of pitch rule options.

The traders vote to have a four-pitch rule was adopted.• A vote on the retention or not of the north side pitches in Electric Avenue was

held last year and the decision to retain them was adopted.• In terms of pitch take up there are currently no permanent pitch vacancies in

Electric Avenue, 4 vacancies in Popes Road and more pitches in BrixtonStation Road are being occupied, than in past years.

• An additional market officer has been appointed this year, enabled by a grantfrom the South Bank Partnership and some efficiency savings. This will enablemore time to be devoted to managing the market more effectively. However,this will take a little more time to role out, due to training needs.

• The ongoing Operation Refresh project has had an impact on street crime,commercial dumping and some illegal street trading. Community Safety can


provide a comprehensive action and outcomes plan. There have also beenlate night operations on illegal taxi drivers and food sellers undertaken byStreet Care supported by the police and prosecutions followed.

• For the first time in years traders have been able to apply for permanentpitches in successive years. This is to enable people to make a fullcommitment to trading in Lambeth.

It would seem the launch of the Steering Group has stimulated a lot of interest,which it is important to capture through open engagement. The “Brixton StreetTrading Market” comprises of three distinct components, Electric Avenue, PopesRoad and Brixton Station Road. Consequently, it is felt important that these threemarket areas are represented on the Steering Group and indeed market tradershave made representations to the market manager to this effect. Consequently, itis recommended that the Steering Group hold elections for representatives fromeach of the three market areas.

As part of the Street Care review the role of the Market Manager is beingdeveloped to make them more accountable for the wider environment andpromoting change. This is also being pursued in partnership with Lower Marsh,supported by a representative from Circle Waterloo. Hopefully, some of thepartnership activities being developed in Lower Marsh can provide ideas, whichwill assist the Steering Group develop a project plan for improving the area.Consequently, it is considered premature to consider appointing another officer,when hopefully the staffing resources will be in place to promote the long-termviability of the market area.

Environment members and management support the establishment of the BrixtonMarket Steering Group. Indeed, it is hoped it will bring together all the interestedparties in the area and provide the base to drive the wide-ranging changes andstimulate the much needed investment that is needed to enhance the wholemarket area.

20. By: Councillor Sally Prentice (04.10.04)

To: Executive Member for Social Services and Health – CouncillorRoger Giess

Garrads Road Respite Care Facility

Could the Executive Member explain why the Council is not honouring itscommitment to develop a respite care facility at Garrads Road?

Party: Labour

Answer:

Garrads Road was a very difficult one, and I am grateful for this chance to put onrecord our thinking behind the decision. Last year the LiberalDemocrat/Conservative Administration was able to confirm budget growth of£1.2m over a 3-year period (from 2004 to 2007) for supporting carers of childrenwith a disability. This was a major item of revenue growth in a tight budget cycle,


and demonstrates the extent to which the Administration is determined to improvethe life chance of vulnerable children in the borough. As it had been some yearssince any previous consultation, I was strongly of the view that we ought to re-consult before committing the funds to a scheme first proposed some three yearsearlier. This consultation exercise was completed earlier this year.

The options we consulted on were whether to invest the Administration’s newmoney in a “short breaks” centre in Garrads Road in Streatham, or whether toprovide a wider range of more flexible services instead.

We considered very carefully the many views that we received. The keymessages were:

• The current services provided by local voluntary organisations are muchappreciated by parents – but we need more of them.

• Many respondents did not know about the current services provided, butwanted to know more about how they could access them.

• The most popular choices for parents were short breaks away with theirchildren, the provision of ‘after school’ clubs and activities and more playfacilities.

• Short breaks for parents provided in their own homes, weekend and overnightbreaks and some residential provision also featured in people’s comments.

In the light of this we decided that the new investment of £1.2m should be used todevelop a range of family services rather than a single facility at Garrads Road.We will be able to develop this variety of services across a number of differentsites, with several voluntary sector organisations. These could include assistancewith family holidays, extra support in the home, extra activities for other children inthe family, after-school activities, indeed almost anything else families tell us willsupport them in their care for their disabled child. We believe this will make themost of our investment and will have the biggest, positive impact for all familieswho have children with disabilities in Lambeth.

Overall, our plans reflect our intention to invest more in those services that parentssay already work. It also takes into account our desire to develop ‘DirectPayments’ for families, so that they can more easily get services suited to theirindividual needs. Putting so much of our resource into a single residential unitwould make this more difficult.

Also I am not convinced that centring our carers’ breaks service so much on asingle residential unit really reflects current and likely trends in good practice.Indeed, I understand that when the previous Labour administration closed theformer Children’s Respite Centre, it was not then proposed to re-open areplacement residential unit. Instead it was seen as an ideal opportunity torefocus the service away from institutional settings. It is a shame the previousadministration never secured sufficient financial stability in Social Services to beable to deliver that.

None of this should be taken to suggest we deny the need for continuing provisionof residential respite. For those parents who require short breaks for their children


in specialist, residential units or who may need their children to be looked after forlonger periods we will continue to purchase such services from existing providersas required. However we will need a wider range of services than this if we are tomeet the aspirations of families of children with disabilities.

21. By: Councillor Jackie Meldrum (04.10.04)

To: Executive Member for Social Services and Health – Councillor Giess

Young Children and Families – Housing Allocation Policy

With your responsibilities for the well-being of children and families were youaware of the recent change in housing allocation policy which has resulted inofficers removing the longstanding rule that no family with young children shouldbe housed above the fifth floor. Are you prepared to have discussions withCouncillor Fitchett to review this aspect of Housing allocations - particularly inregard to placing families with young children in those high rise blocks with openwalkways and balconies?

Party: Labour

Answer:

I am not only aware of this policy but in the current circumstances agree with it andwould not seek to persuade Councillor Fitchett or anyone else to change it. TheCouncil's Executive approved a new housing allocation scheme on 24 March 2003after the scheme put in place by Cllr Meldrum and her colleagues was declaredillegal. The previous allocations policy relating to households with children under12 and properties above the fifth floor was not included in the new allocationscheme. The policy was not sustainable nor do we believe it was fair. Nor do Iaccept that the policy always worked in the interests of the children it was intendedto benefit.

Lambeth is faced with enormous housing pressures. The Council is seeking tohouse many families which include small children and need two bedroom or otherfamily-sized accommodation. A significant number of these family-sized flats areabove the fifth floor. Under the previous policy these would have to be allocated tolower priority households, although there are large numbers of higher priorityhouseholds still waiting to be housed. I do entirely agree that it is not at all ideal tohave young children in properties on higher floors. However we do not believethat the disadvantages of a young family being in a higher floor flat so significantlyeffect the child’s welfare that we should have an inflexible rule to make them stayin overcrowded accommodation, (even when that overcrowding is clearly effectingtheir welfare).

The second reason for the change of policy relates to choice. Households on themainstream transfer list and housing register are allowed to express preferencesabout the type of accommodation they are offered. Unsurprisingly few familieschoose flats on high floors. However, by the same token, low demand flats maypresent families slightly lower down the list with their only opportunity of an offer.


To refuse to allow a family with children under 12 to express interest in a flatabove the 5th floor is an unwarranted and undesirable constraint on their exerciseof choice. Families should not be stopped from deciding for themselves to puttheir need for more space above the fact that a possible new home is above the5th floor.

However I do think it is right that the Council signals that we acknowledge that it isnot ideal for younger children to live on higher floors. For this reason an additional5 points on the transfer list are awarded to tenants with children under 12 who arehoused on the 6th floor or above. While this may seem a small number of points,it is sufficient to give such households a "head start" over other transfer applicantswho are in a similar degree of housing need but who live on a lower floor.

22. By: Councillor Helen O’Malley (04.10.04)


Windmill Drive

When was Windmill Drive adopted by the Borough?

Party: Labour

Answer:

Windmill Drive is among the vast majority of highways maintainable at publicexpense within Lambeth in that there is no record of a formal resolution to adopt ithaving been made by the Council. It is deemed adopted by virtue of the fact thatLambeth and its predecessor authorities have continuously and consistentlymaintained it over a considerable number of years.

You may also be interested to know that be that because Windmill Drive is a publichighway maintainable at public expense the Council has the power to make TrafficManagement Orders to control parking and traffic movement on or along it. Newparking controls along Windmill Drive are included within the proposals for theextension of the Clapham "L" CPZ. The proposals have been designed to reducecommuter parking and improve road safety whilst enabling residents and othersusers of Clapham Common to park close by so as to continue to enjoy its benefits.

23. By: Councillor Kevin Craig (05.10.04)

To: Executive Member for Housing – Councillor Keith Fitchett

Repairs to Springfield Estate

What is your response to the recent letters sent by residents of BrocketHouse, Springfield Estate, SW8 in which they said they felt let down andneglected by Lambeth Council's ability to undertake the most basic ofrepairs and to deal with the issue of anti-social behaviour on the Estate?


Party: Labour

Answer:

The recent roll-out of reframing to the Clapham & Stockwell areas is alreadyproving effective in dealing with these problems. There has been a problem withyouths hanging round on the estate which has caused concern to residents. Thenewly created Nuisance and Anti-Social Behaviour Officer (NASBO) has alreadydiscussed this issue with the Community Safety Officer; this happened in the weekbefore the new Area Office opened. The Community Safety Officer has contactedconcerned residents and is to meet again with the NASBO next week to take thematter forward.

The Local Service Team Manager (again, a newly-created post) is daily out on theestate and has identified the issues there. He is liaising with the parking controlcontractors about the problem of inconsiderately parked cars which are causingproblems to the refuse collection service. Some matters, like the perceivedinadequacy of the communal lighting, will take longer to resolve but are beingflagged up for consideration. The LST Manager and the Housing Officer willwelcome communication from residents about their concerns; his priority is toimprove and maintain the appearance of the properties under his care.

For many years Lambeth’s housing repairs system has been inconsistent andgave poor value to tenants. The current changes are the first serious attempt byany administration to tackle the problem at root. All the indications are that thenew repairs system is working significantly better and tenants are getting a muchbetter service.

If the Councillor has not already visited the Services Centre I warmly invite his todo so. He will find 90% of all calls answered within 15 seconds, calls answered in8 different languages, most repairs allocated immediately and 100% of tenantstelephoned to check on the timeliness and quality of work." All Councillors canfeel proud of these improvements which we are determined to take still further.

24. By: Councillor Paul McGlone (05.10.04)

To: The Leaseholders' Champion – Councillor Jeremy Clyne

Leasholders’ Champion: duties undertaken

The last meeting of the Leaseholder's Council expressed astonishment when theylearnt you were supposed to be the leaseholders' "champion" and were taking anallowance for your work. They claimed they didn't know you had the role andquestioned whether you did anything to earn the money. Could you explain whatduties you have carried out, with dates, over the past two months to justify takingyour special responsibility allowance?

Party: Labour


Answer:

You are incorrect. Lambeth Leasehold Council was first informed on May 6th ofmy nomination as leaseholder champion, since when this body has met twice, onJuly 15th and October 7th. On not one of these occasions was any criticism ofmyself whatsoever expressed.

You are not on record as attending any of these meetings. I suggest, therefore,that you address any remarks to the source of your allegation that I was criticisedby Leasehold Council - or for an account of Leasehold Council proceedings toyour housing spokesman, Councillor Kazantzis, who is a regular attendee at itsmeetings, and who is also my co-chair on the current Leasehold Commission,which is investigating the borough’s services to its leaseholders and ways forimprovement.

I will continue to work with leaseholders and officers to improve services toLambeth council leaseholders and to champion the many leaseholders withunresolved issues.

25. By: Councillor John Kazantzis (05.10.04)


Flat Conversions

Please could the Executive Member with responsibility for planning explain whythe council keeps granting planning permission for conversions into flats of 3bedroom, family sized houses in Streatham Vale, in direct contravention of its ownUDP.

Party: Labour

Answer:

It would have been sensible if you had supplied a list of addresses, of theconsents which you say have been granted in Streatham Vale in directcontravention of the Lambeth UDP, because planning officers don’t know of any.The Lambeth UDP, state the council will see to prevent the conversion of housesthat are less than 3 stories, The replacement UDP, seeks to limit the conversion ofhouses whose floor area was originally (when built or prior to 1948) less than 120square metres.

Officers report that no planning permission has been granted by this Council forconversions of any such property in Streatham Vale, no consents granted byLambeth for conversion of houses less than 3 stories no consents granted forconversions of properties originally of less than 120 square metres, and noconsents granted for conversions of small properties contrary to the UDP. In factthere have been two notable examples recently, in Streatham Vale, at number 100and number 176 where conversion was refused.


Unfortunately in both those cases it was the Secretary of State’s Inspector whothen overturned the decision which the Council had taken in line with our ownUDP, and allowed them at appeal. Senior Planning officers advise that thesedecisions were overturned because of national government policy on housingsupply, giving weight to more recent Government and Mayoral polices whichindicate small houses should be allowed to be converted to flats.

This is an issue which we will need to pursue at the upcoming enquiry, on theUDP, the outcome of which will determine whether it is possible for the council tocontinue to resist conversions of smaller houses into flats whether in Streathamvale or elsewhere. If you do believe that it was wrong for such conversion to beallowed contrary to the UDP I hope you make representations to Mr Hill to thateffect.

26. By: Councillor Tim Sargeant (05.10.04)


Pigeon Proofing of Bridges

Would the Executive Member for Environment enlighten Council as to whichbridges in Lambeth have been pigeon proofed since May 2002? Which bridges inLambeth are scheduled to be pigeon proofed until 2006 and at what cost? Finally,could he set out the criteria which is used to decide which bridges are pigeonproofed and which are not?

Party: Labour

Answer:

I am always pleased to offer the Council enlightenment. The following bridgeshave been treated since May 2002:

Centaur StreetSouth Lambeth PlaceHalf Moon Lane/Norwood Road

Following the long awaited introduction of legislation relating to pigeon proofing ofbridges in July 2004 (The London Local Authorities Bill Clause 11, PigeonNuisance) Network Rail now has responsibility for pigeon proofing the bridges thatit owns. The bridges listed below were originally agreed for proofing by NetworkRail on the basis of their own survey.

• Leigham Vale (Between Streatham Hill/West Norwood)• Coldharbour Lane (Between Denmark Hill and Clapham High Street)• Glencairn Road (Between Streatham Common and Norbury)• Cornwall Road (Waterloo East Station)• Carlisle Lane (Between Waterloo and Vauxhall)


• Norwood High Street

Following a change of personnel at Network Rail the company has since statedthat:

“Final decisions on which bridges will be proofed have not yet been taken. Muchwill depend upon returned prices and available budget. The appointed projectmanager will make the final decisions on which bridges are proofed.”

The Council will continue to chase Network Rail to ensure that works are carriedout as a matter of urgency. The criteria for deciding which bridges will be pigeonproofed are:

• The amount of fouling by pigeons on the footpath/carriageway.• The amount of pedestrian usage beneath the bridge• The cost to the authority for cleansing/jetting the bridge walls and footpath

27. By: Councillor Sharon Ward (05.10.04)

To: Executive Member for Environment – Councillor Clare Whelan,

Alcohol Licensing

What consultation with the public has the Council undertaken or does theCouncil intend to take in future in relation to Lambeth's policy on alcohollicensing?

Party: Labour

Answer:

In order to meet statutory timetables and to maximise the time available for publicconsultation, internal consultation was undertaken ahead of the final version ofStatutory Guidance which was published in July 2004. A draft version of theStatement of Licensing Policy was agreed for external consultation by the MemberWorking Group at its meeting on 22 July 2004. External consultation commencedon 2 August 2004 with a closing date of 1 October 2004.

The Licensing Service has consulted directly with all licencees within the borough.All have been sent a copy of the Draft Policy with a letter and questionnaireinviting their comments. Town Centre Managers have been very helpful inassisting the Licensing Service by sending out copies of the Consultation DraftLicensing Policy with a letter and questionnaire to all appropriate contacts on theirmailing lists. This includes residents groups and businesses within their areas andany other contacts deemed appropriate. The draft policy and questionnaire hasalso been made available via the Council's website and questionnaires could bereturned electronically. Over 200 responses have been received.

Licensing Officers are undertaking a further round of internal consultation. Viewsfrom Community Safety, Social Services and Education are particularly being


sought. All Area Committees were advised of the consultation arrangementsearlier this year in a draft report and either have or will shortly receive a reportoutlining the progress that has been made towards meeting the requirements ofthe Licensing Act 2003. The report also sets out arrangements for consultation onthe Council's Draft Statement of Licensing Policy.

Reponses are being collated by the Licensing Service and will be considered by aworking group of Officers, Executive Member for Environment, Chair of LicensingCommittee, Councillor Lumsden and Councillor O'Connell. A meeting of thisgroup will take place on 21 October to consider responses to the externalconsultation. A revised Draft Statement of Licensing Policy will be recommendedfor agreement by Executive on 6 December and Council on 15t December 2004.

28. By: Councillor Steve Reed (05.10.04)


Road Resurfacing in Brixton Hill Ward

Which roads in Brixton Hill Ward will be resurfaced in the coming round of roadsmaintenance? How much road surface does this represent in total? Bycomparison, which roads in Thurlow Park Ward and Gipsy Hill Ward - which areboth Tory-held - are being resurfaced, and how much road surface does thatrepresent. Finally, please clarify what objective criteria were used to assess roadsfor improvement based on the level of identifiable need.

Party: Labour

Answer:

The following roads are being resurfaced within the 2004-05 carriagewaymaintenance programme:-(i) Brixton Hill Ward: Cotherstone Road, Roupell Road (Total area 1770 sq m).(ii) Thurlow Park Ward: Brockwell Park Gardens, Chatsworth Way, Dalton Street(Total area 7522 sq m).(iii) Gipsy Hill Ward: Lunham Road, Hamilton Road (part), Roman Rise,Mountbatten Close, Gipsy Hill (part), Highland Road (Total area 9045 sq m).

The methodology for deciding the programme was, as in previous years, been ona “worst condition first” basis as follows:

Those roads shown by the Council's 2001 United Kingdom PavementManagement System (UKPMS) Coarse Visual Inspection (CVI) survey as in theworst condition, i.e. having the highest (default) Condition Indicator 102.3, wereidentified. Of these, those known by the local Area Engineers to be in the mostneed of attention (in terms of current condition and usage) where considered forinclusion in the programme. Borderline cases were decided with regard to anearlier invitation to all Members to nominate the worst roads in their wards (ieresponse to the e-mail from the Head of Transport and Highways dated 21 March


2004).

The compilation of the programme was made without regard to ward boundariesor geographical location of the roads. The proposed programme wasrecommended to the Executive and Deputy Executive Members for Transport andapproved unamended following a tour of sites on 17 June 2004.

A further UKPMS survey is currently being carried out to provide the latestinformation on the condition of all roads in the borough. The results of that surveywill be used to determine which roads are to be re-surfaced within a programme ofwork, to be funded from the Lambeth Opportunities Fund, which will take place in2004-05 and 2005-06.

29. By: Councillor Jonathan Myerson (05.10.04)

To: Deputy Leader of the Council - Councillor John Whelan

Parking Fines

Earlier this year, I received a letter from Ruth Cartwright in Essex containing a £20note as a contribution towards the £1000 parking fines which your administration isat present pursuing against two of my disabled constituents. Following repeatedrepresentations, your administration has refused to remit these fines. The letterreads "Many years ago, my grandfather Joseph Cartwright was a LambethCouncillor (Tory). He would not approve of the Council's actions." As currentlyTory Leader, are you embarrassed by this?

Party: Labour

Answer:

No, I am pleased with the action taken by officers, which is in line with the policyguidelines given to them by the joint administration early this year. The Councilnow better understands the difficulties faced by disabled drivers, particularly whenthey are unfortunate enough to experience theft of their Blue Badge.

This kind of distressing experience, which used to be common place between1998-2002 was brought to my attention as a ward Councillor by a constituent inIdmiston Road under the previous administration, but the then Executive Memberresponsible for Parking took no action to initiate any changes in the badgescheme.

I am pleased to say that the Parking Service has this year introduced a newLambeth Disabled Parking Permit (LDPP), with the aim of reducing the risk oftheft. The LDPP shows the vehicle registration number, Blue Badge number andan expiry date. Because the permit has a unique vehicle registration number, it isuseless to a thief. It is also affixed permanently to the windscreen using a self-adhesive and any attempts to remove the permit will destroy it.

The two residents to whom you refer, are able to apply for a LDPP. This permit


has been available to Lambeth disabled residents since July 2004, and came toolate for some who had already experienced the distress and inconvenience ofhaving their Blue Badge stolen. An effective publicity scheme is now in place.

The PCNs issued to the disabled residents are valid, because both failed todisplay their Blue Badge correctly. Every effort was made to assist the residentsin question to pay for the PCNs. This included reducing the PCN amount to that ofthe discount level and allowing payment to be made by instalments.

However, taking into account the changes to the enforcement of disabled bayparking following the introduction of the LDPP, further consideration has beengiven to these cases mentioned. Officers have reconsidered their decision andthe PCNs issued prior to the new disabled permit scheme will now be cancelled.Notification of this will be sent to the disabled residents to confirm the cancellation.

I feel sure that the former Councillor you refer to would have considered theexercise of such discretion, and the remedy found by the officers, to beappropriate. It is in line with the ‘one nation, caring Conservativism’ that I, and myward colleagues, have consistently supported, in my case during 14 years on theCouncil, six of them in joint administrations, and eight in Opposition.

30. By: Councillor Donatus Anyanwu (05.10.04)

To: Executive Member for Education – Councillor Anthony Bottrall

Sixth Form at Proposed New City Academy in Brixton

Could the Executive Member for Education inform Council as to what studies havebeen carried out into the sustainability of a sixth form at the proposed new cityacademy on the Shakespeare Road in Brixton? Is he aware of concerns fromlocal parents that a four form entry school will struggle to sustain the range ofteaching expertise and class sizes to ensure that the new school continues tohave viable long-term 16-18 education facilities?

Party: Labour

Answer:

Detailed feasibility studies will be undertaken as part of the discussions with thesponsor as to the sustainability of the proposed school on Shakespeare Road.We are aware of concerns expressed and we will be consulting all concerned inthe coming months.

7. REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE (agenda paragraph 6)

MOVED by Councillor Peter Truesdale and SECONDED by Councillor John Whelan.

During consideration of this item, all members of the Opposition in attendancewithdrew from the meeting.


Report RECEIVED.

MOVED by Councillor Marietta Crichton Stuart, SECONDED by Councillor RussellA’Court and:

RESOLVED: That in accordance with Standing Orders 2 & 23, the previously agreedprocedural motion be altered to enable agenda paragraph 10 to be considered priorto the remaining business.

8. CONSTITUTION 2004/5: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS (agenda paragraph10)

Advice from Head of Legal Services

By virtue of Part 2 of the Members’ Code of Conduct, Members have a personal interestin the subject matter of this report, which must be declared at the meeting. However,members should also note that paragraph 10(g) of the Code provides that a membermay regard him or herself as not having a prejudicial interest in the matter.

Members were accordingly recorded as having declared an interest in this matter.

MOVED by Councillor Ashlev Lumsden and SECONDED by Councillor John Whelan.

Amendment 1

This amendment was not moved and therefore fell.

Amendment 2

MOVED by Councillor Peter Truesdale and SECONDED that the following additionalrecommendation be added:

(5) Council expresses its thanks to Councillors Giess and Lumsden for theirdedication in serving on the adoption and fostering panels. Council notes thatCouncillor Lumsden has attended all but one of the fostering panel meetings, missingonly one to attend a Council training session.

Voting

Amendment 2

Agreed.

Substantive recommendations

Agreed.


RESOLVED:

(1) That the Code of Conduct for Non-Voting Co-opted Members of CouncilCommittees and Sub-Committees and Members of Scrutiny Commissions(Appendix 1) be adopted and incorporated in the Constitution 2004-05 as Part 5,Section 2 (with existing Sections to be renumbered accordingly).

(2) That the revised Protocol for Members of the Planning Applications Committee(Appendix 2) be adopted and incorporated in the Constitution 2004-05 (as revisedcurrent Part 5, Section 4).

(3) That the Constitution and Members Allowance Scheme 2004-05 (Part 6) beamended as follows:

• Pages 78-79: delete existing pages and insert new wording as set out inAppendix 3.

• Page 456: Delete “Adoption Panel member 1: Councillor Giess: £2000, andAdoption Panel member 2: Councillor Lumsden: £2000”.

• Page 456: Insert “Adoption Panel: Councillor Giess: £2000, and FosteringPanel: Councillor Lumsden: £2000”.

(4) That the consequential amendments to the list of Council representatives on otherbodies and outside organisations as set out in paragraph 2.9 be made.

(5) Council expresses its thanks to Councillors Giess and Lumsden for theirdedication in serving on the adoption and fostering panels. Council notes thatCouncillor Lumsden has attended all but one of the fostering panel meetings,missing only one to attend a Council training session.

9. REPORT OF MEETINGS OF THE EXECUTIVE (agenda paragraph 7)

7.1 Food Safety Service Plan Plan (All Wards / All Areas) (report 87/04-05 plusAppendix)

RESOLVED: That the Food Safety Service Plan for 2004/5 be approved.

7.2 Corporate Parenting Board (All Wards / All Areas) (report 88/04-05)

Amendment 1

MOVED by Councillor Giess and SECONDED by Councillor J. Whelan that thefollowing be added to the end of the recommendation:

Council welcomes the establishment of the Corporate Parenting Board. Council notesthat all Councillors are corporate parents and therefore resolves to ensure that not onlylead members but also backbenchers from both the administration and oppositionparties are represented on the Board, thereby ensuring that members take their


responsibilities very seriously and safeguard the best interests of all our looked afterchildren.

Voting

Amendment 1

Agreed.

Substantive recommendation

Agreed.

RESOLVED: That the Corporate Parenting Board be established as a Panel of theExecutive, with an annual report to be submitted to full Council. Council welcomesthe establishment of the Corporate Parenting Board. Council notes that allCouncillors are corporate parents and therefore resolves to ensure that not only leadmembers but also backbenchers from both the administration and opposition partiesare represented on the Board, thereby ensuring that members take theirresponsibilities very seriously and safeguard the best interests of all our looked afterchildren.

7.3 London Local Authorities Act 2004: promotion of a ninth Bill (All Wards /All Areas) (report 200/04-05)

RESOLVED: That approval; be given to the inclusion in the Bill being of the followingbeing promoted by Westminster City Council under the name or short title of “LondonLocal Authorities” of provisions effecting all or some of the following purposes:

(a) to make provision in respect of the control of portableadvertisements; providing better powers to deal with fly posting andgraffiti including powers of seizure and stronger penalties; makingfurther provision about unauthorised advertisement hoardings; toprovide for telephone call barring for numbers mentioned inunauthorised advertisements including those placed in telephonekiosks; strengthening Councils’ powers as regards the control ofwaste and the use of street litter control notices; prescribing howrecyclable waste should be separated, enabling the making ofstandard regulations about the use of waste receptacles; chargingfor additional household waste collections; providing further powersto deal with waste on private land; strengthening and extending thelaw relating to litter including powers to deal with litter and waste inaquatic environments and dealing with littering from vehicles;controlling the use of civic amenity sites; dealing with wastetransfer notes and licences; strengthening enforcement against fly-tipping; strengthening powers to deal with abandoned vehicles andproviding powers to remove and dispose of nuisance and othervehicles;


updating the law on intruder alarms; dealing with construction noisefrom underground stations; dealing with control of noise nuisance fromstreet works; providing stronger powers to deal with noise nuisance;strengthening enforcement against illegal “near beer” premises;dealing with the display or possession for supply of R18 videos inunlicensed sex shops; allowing conditions relating to waste and litterto be attached to premises licences under the Licensing Act 2003;dealing with fees for premises and personal licences in London underthat Act; increasing the number of members who can sit on licensingcommittees under that Act; enabling the provision of cleaning upconditions at licensed special events; dealing with charitablecollections on the highway and public places; amending the lawrelating to street trading including dealing with shop forecourts,bridges over the Thames and the South Bank; introducing thelicensing of proprietary clubs; altering the law relating to the licensingof special treatment premises, to include dealing with nail art, mobilepremises, and premises under the Registered Homes Act; dealing withbicycle rickshaws or pedicabs; amending and extending the lawrelating to parking and parking enforcement including dealing withrepeat offenders, and with motorcycles on the footway; dealing withcycling on the pavement; dealing with abandoned bicycles and otherbicycles left in public places; dealing with filming on the highway and inopen spaces and making further provision about filming in London;dealing with chairs and tables and other things placed on the highwayincluding the making of additional charges; altering the law relating tooverhanging vegetation on the highway; providing exemptions fromtraffic restrictions for waste collection and road sweeping vehicles;making further provision about vehicle crossovers and driving off thecarriageway; removal of articles attached to street furniture and otherobjects on or abutting the highway; removal of disused telephonekiosks and other disused apparatus and street furniture; thedecriminalisation of low emission zone enforcement; stopping vehiclesfor emissions testing; enabling Councils to provide “wi-fi” technology;providing for the registration of second-hand dealers; providing for thecontrol or prohibition of smoking in public places or the work place; theprovision of consumer advice; altering the concessionary faresscheme; the registration of businesses who provide mail forwardingservices; enabling Councils to obtain the names and addresses ofpeople whose telephone numbers are publicised in connection withunlawful activity, including unlawful street trading of vehicles; furtherdecriminalisation of offences prosecuted by local authorities and theintroduction of a penalty charge notice regime akin to parking;extending Councils’ powers to serve fixed penalty notices to includeoffences not currently covered; delegating the issuing of fixed penaltynotices and further flexibility in relation to fixed penalty noticesprocedures, including provision for early payment and service ofnotices on those aged 16 and above; sharing of information to combatbenefit fraud and for other purposes; co-operation on pension fundmanagement; altering the London Boroughs Grant Scheme; altering


the planning cycle on schools admission; amending the law relatingto pipe subways; extending Councils’ powers to charge forservices; enabling zoning powers within which higher fines can beimposed in relation to certain offences; the change of use ofresidential property under Town and Country Planning law;enabling schemes of information to be provided; authorising thedisturbance of human remains to enable existing graves to be usedfor further interments; implementing security arrangements inhousing estates; strengthening the law relating to short-term letting;providing for the registration of persons able to accept service ofnotices on behalf of landlords; (in the case of the London Boroughof Camden) removing restrictions on the placing of temporarystructures in Lincoln’s Inn Fields; the regulation of bonfires; thefurther regulation of use of fireworks; the control of storage or useof acetylene cylinders; further powers to deal with abandonedshopping trolleys and luggage trolleys; allowing charging fordiscretionary services; relaxing VAT partial exemption restrictionson Councils; removing certain existing capital finance restrictionson Councils; enabling Councils to provide services to a widermarket; relaxing requirements relating to tramlines in the road;dealing with overgrown vegetation and other unsightly material onprivate premises; strengthening the law relating to spitting in publicplaces; further regulating the location of telecommunications mastsand base stations to ensure telecommunications operators sharesites; and to strengthen planning law relating to the siting of masts;mandatory consultation by water companies with Councils aboutmains water pressure; enabling charging for the reinspection ofpremises under certain statutory regimes; making minoramendments to the London Local Authorities and Transport forLondon Act 2003 and other local legislation; removing therequirement to provide signs indicating the overnight parking banfor commercial vehicles; extending Councils’ powers to makebyelaws; enabling Councils to impose a local levy on plastic bags,takeaway food packaging, chewing gum and cigarette packetwrappers; to alter powers of entry of Council officers, particularlythose of trading standards officers; to enable Courts to makeorders to disqualify persons from holding company directorships ifrepeatedly found guilty of certain offences relating to thedegradation of the amenity of an area or the unlawful sale ofproducts to underage persons; enabling councils to gate offnuisance alleyways and passages and enabling Councils tocollaborate further in the provision of services;

(b) to enact any additional, supplemental and consequential provisionsthat may appear to be necessary or convenient.


10. REPORT OF MEETINGS OF THE CORPORATE COMMITTEE (agendaparagraph 8)

8.1 Statement of Accounts (All Wards / All Areas) (report 111/04-05)

RESOLVED: That in accordance with Lambeth’s Constitution, part 3, section 4a,C.63, Council ratify the Statement of Accounts as set out in appendix 1 and approvedby Corporate Committee on 29th July 2004.

8.2 New Byelaws for Lambeth’s Parks and Greenspaces (All Wards / AllAreas) (report 133/04-05)

RESOLVED: That consideration be deferred to the meeting on 15th December 2004.

11. NOTICES OF MOTION (agenda paragraph 9)

Motion 1: Housing reframing

This motion was not moved and therefore fell.

Motion 2: Traffic calming measures on New Park Road


Motion 3: Street Care

MOVED by Councillor Marietta Crichton Stuart and SECONDED by Councillor PeterTruesdale.

Amendment 1

MOVED by Councillor Clare Whelan and SECONDED:

That the motion be amended as follows:-

Add at end:

Council notes the need to continually improve performance in Street Care andrecognises there is still work to be done, but welcomes recent figures from EnCamswhich show that Lambeth is in fourth place on the league table of boroughsparticipating in the Capital Standards programme.

This represents an improvement in the standard of cleanliness on the borough’s mainroads, side roads, housing land, parks, and industrial land that appears to haveoutstripped our partner boroughs during the past year.


Voting

Amendment 1

Agreed.

Substantive motion

Agreed.

RESOLVED:

Council commends the actions of Street Care to try and tackle the serious issue ofillegal dumping in Lambeth, but notes that the range of fines currently in operationdo not act as a deterrent. Council calls on the government to review the level offinancial penalties for illegal dumping with a view to increasing them considerably.

Council notes the need to continually improve performance in Street Care andrecognises there is still work to be done, but welcomes recent figures from EnCamswhich show that Lambeth is in fourth place on the league table of boroughsparticipating in the Capital Standards programme.

This represents an improvement in the standard of cleanliness on the borough’smain roads, side roads, housing land, parks, and industrial land that appears tohave outstripped our partner boroughs during the past year.

Motion 4: Environmental improvements on housing estates


Motion 5: Equalities Digest


Motion 6: Local community premises


Motion 7: Michael Tippett School Lancaster Unit - Hydrotherapy Pool

MOVED, SECONDED and

RESOLVED:

Council congratulates the administration on the scheduled re-opening of the MichaelTippett School refurbished and repaired hydrotherapy pool on the Elmcourt Schoolsite, which will take place in early November, thanks to funding from the LambethOpportunities Fund. We recall how Thurlow Park School and the hydrotherapy pool


were closed in 2000 by the previous Labour Council, only a few months after theopening of a £1million nursery for children with special needs by the MP for Dulwichand West Norwood, Mr David Blunkett, and his guide dog Lucy.

Motion 8: Quality of education provision in Brixton

MOVED by Councillor Peter Truesdale and SECONDED by Councillor AnthonyBottrall.

Amendment 1

MOVED by Councillor Anthony Bottrall and SECONDED by Councillor CrichtonStuart:


Add at end:

We also call on the government once again to approve the Council’s bid for BuildingSchools for the Future (BSF) funding in full in the next round of funding, due to beannounced shortly.

None of the authorities awarded funding in the first round had significant shortages ofsecondary school places. Lambeth is unique in inner London in the extent to whichlacks places for local pupils within its own secondary schools.

BSF funding is essential to improve the quality of educational facilities for pupils in allexisting LEA secondary schools (10 mainstream and 5 special schools) as well as toenable them to expand their combined provision up to a further 6 forms of entry.

Council also reaffirms its commitment to the new West Norwood School andrecognises the importance of a successful BSF bid to enable work to start on theproject with the minimum of further delay.

Amendment 2

MOVED by Councillor Charles Anglin and SECONDED by Councillor AnthonyBottrall:


Add new paragraph:

Council commends the hard work and dedication by pupils, staff and governors atLilian Baylis Technology School, which has transformed performance, standards anddiscipline. Council welcomes the completion of the new building, which will finallyprovide local children in North Lambeth with high quality, purpose builtaccommodation necessary to meet their educational aspirations and capabilities.


Voting

Amendment 1

Agreed.

Amendment 2

Agreed.

Substantive motion

Agreed.

RESOLVED:

Lambeth Council reaffirms the commitment to ensuring the same high quality ofeducational provision for pupils in the Brixton area as exists elsewhere in theborough and acknowledges the quality of opportunity offered by the new Academy.

We also call on the government once again to approve the Council’s bid forBuilding Schools for the Future (BSF) funding in full in the next round of funding,due to be announced shortly.

None of the authorities awarded funding in the first round had significant shortagesof secondary school places. Lambeth is unique in inner London in the extent towhich lacks places for local pupils within its own secondary schools.

BSF funding is essential to improve the quality of educational facilities for pupils inall existing LEA secondary schools (10 mainstream and 5 special schools) as wellas to enable them to expand their combined provision up to a further 6 forms ofentry.

Council also reaffirms its commitment to the new West Norwood School andrecognises the importance of a successful BSF bid to enable work to start on theproject with the minimum of further delay.

Council commends the hard work and dedication by pupils, staff and governors atLilian Baylis Technology School, which has transformed performance, standardsand discipline. Council welcomes the completion of the new building, which willfinally provide local children in North Lambeth with high quality, purpose builtaccommodation necessary to meet their educational aspirations and capabilities.

Recorded vote:For:Councillors A’COURT, ANGLIN, BAKER, BENNETT, BOTTRALL, BOWRING,CLARKE, CLYNE, CRICHTON STUART, DERING, EVANS, FEWTRELL, GENTRY,GIESS, GRIGG, HEATHER, LUMSDEN, McCONNELL, MARCHANT, MAYERS,


MEADER, Clive PARRY, PINDAR, SANDERS, SAWDON, TRUESDALE,WAKEFIELD, Clare WHELAN and John WHELAN.

Against:None.

Motion 9: Fly-tipping around Streatham Common


Motion 10: Caribbean: Hurricane Ivan

MOVED by Councillor Marietta Crichton-Stuart, SECONDED by Councillor PeterTruesdale and:

RESOLVED:

Hurricane Ivan devastated many communities in the Caribbean last month. We arefully aware that many Lambeth residents have strong family ties and friends in thecountries affected by the hurricane and that it will take many years for thosecommunities to rebuild their homes and for businesses and the agricultural economyto fully recover. Council therefore agrees to send messages of support to thedevastated areas and will assist local Lambeth organisations in their efforts toprovide practical and financial support for the recovery work in the Caribbean.

Motion 11: Holmewood Gardens Home Zone: review

MOVED by Councillor Andrew Sawdon and SECONDED by Councillor PeterTruesdale.

Amendment 1

MOVED by Councillor Andrew Sawdon and SECONDED by Councillor PeterTruesdale:

In the first sentence delete the words “calls on Lambeth Environment” and replacewith:

Council instructs the Executive Director of Environment to sort out the problems ofpoor workmanship in the Holmewood Gardens Home Zone and

Then delete all after the first sentence.

Voting

Amendment 1


Agreed.

Substantive motion

Agreed.

RESOLVED:

Council instructs the Executive Director of Environment to sort out the problems ofpoor workmanship in the Holmewood Gardens Home Zone and to conduct an urgentreview of the implementation of the Holmewood Gardens Home Zone.

Motion12: Advertising hoarding: bottom of St Saviours Road near the junctionwith Brixton Hill


Motion 13: Domestic Violence reporting

MOVED by Councillor Marietta Crichton Stuart and SECONDED by Councillor RogerGiess.

Amendment 1

MOVED by Councillor Charles Anglin and SECONDED by Councillor AndrewSawdon:


Insert new paragraph:

Council also notes the innovative local multi-agency work being carried out to tackleother serious crimes. It commends the hard work of local police, council officers andhe community who by working together have halved street-crime since May 2002.

Council notes that despite national controversy street crime in Lambeth has in factfallen by 48% in the last 2 years and that the number of crack houses open at anyone time in the borough has fallen from an average of 84%to under 10 and comparesthis with the rising crime rate nationally.

Council calls on central government in increase the resources available to localagencies so that they can build on their pro-active prevention work and tackle crimeeffectively.

Voting

Amendment 1

Agreed.


Substantive motion

Agreed.

RESOLVED:

Lambeth has a very high rate of domestic violence and Council welcomes thework in hand to establish a one-stop shop for victims of domestic violence.Tackling domestic violence is a multi-agency activity with the Police having animportant role. Within a few months all Lambeth Police Officers will havecompleted Domestic Violence Awareness training.As a result of thus important Police training initiative an increase in the reportingof domestic violence can be expected. Council therefore urges Lambeth officersto ensure appropriate resources are in place to handle the anticipated increase indomestic violence reporting – which is likely to have a significant impact on theworkloads of staff in Social Services, Housing and Education.

Council also notes the innovative local multi-agency work being carried out totackle other serious crimes. It commends the hard work of local police, councilofficers and he community who by working together have halved street-crimesince May 2002.

Council notes that despite national controversy street crime in Lambeth has in factfallen by 48% in the last 2 years and that the number of crack houses open at anyone time in the borough has fallen from an average of 84%to under 10 andcompares this with the rising crime rate nationally.Council calls on central government in increase the resources available to localagencies so that they can build on their pro-active prevention work and tacklecrime effectively.

Motion 14: Public transport fare increases

MOVED by Councillor Peter Truesdale and SECONDED.

Amendment 1


RESOLVED:

Council recalls the comment made by the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, in aletter to the Evening Standard on 27th August 2003 when he announced the faresfor 2004 that "This new fare package will see future increases limited to the rateof inflation for the next four years". Council therefore notes with considerabledismay that the Mayor admitted on the 21st September that Lambeth residentsface three years of fare increases at a rate greater than inflation, with a single busfare increasing from £1 to £1.20 as of January 2005.


Council further notes that this comes at a time when it is clear Lambeth is a lowpriority for the Mayor and Transport for London (TfL). The promised publictransport improvements within Lambeth are fading away as the East London Linestops at Streatham and Streatham Hill have been cancelled and there will not bea station at Brixton even if the line goes to Clapham Junction. The financialproblems within TfL threaten the Cross River Tram proposals and the CroydonTramlink will only be extended to Crystal Palace and not into Streatham.Furthermore, TfL has withdrawn funding it promised to help improve StreathamHigh Road, while across the borough TfL’s roadworks routinely take far longerthan anticipated to complete while there is very poor communication with localresidents.

Given the clear importance of public transport to those living and working inLambeth (50.9% of Lambeth households do not own a car, as against only 26.8%of households nationally) Council condemns Mayor Livingstone for breaking hispromises on fare increases and his ‘I spend now, you pay later’ approach torunning the GLA and TfL.

Council regrets that it is the Mayor’s own financial incompetence which has left a£675 million gap in TfL plans. Council even more regrets that the Mayor hasalready refused to rule out increases in the GLA precept next year as well, leavingLambeth residents having to pay twice for Mayor Livingstone’s lamentablemismanagement of public transport in the capital, while seeing the cancellation ofdesperately needed improvements in public transport in Lambeth.

Motion 15: Rosendale Playing Fields - Restoration of Changing Rooms

MOVED by Councillor John Whelan and SECONDED by Councillor Peter Truesdale.

Amendment 1


Amendment 2

MOVED by Councillor Clare Whelan and SECONDED by Councillor MariettaCrichton Stuart:

Add at end:

Council also notes the allocation of the initial £200k to remedy the dilapidations at theRosendale Playing Fields which reinforces the Administration’s commitment toenhancing parks and green spaces.

Voting

Amendment 2


Agreed.

Substantive motion

Agreed.

RESOLVED:

Council congratulates the administration on the scheduled re-opening of theChanging Room Facilities at the Rosendale Playing Fields, which are currently beingrefurbished and repaired, after years of neglect by the previous Labour Council,thanks to top-up funding from the Lambeth Opportunities Fund. We recall howrepeated appeals by Councillors, children and youth groups to the two previousLabour Executive Members for Education were ignored and nothing was done otherthan to allow the playing fields to deteriorate.

Council also notes the allocation of the initial £200k to remedy the dilapidations at theRosendale Playing Fields which reinforces the Administration’s commitment toenhancing parks and green spaces.

12. PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF FINANCIAL REGULATIONS (All Wards/All Areas) (report 218/04-05)

MOVED, SECONDED and:

RESOLVED: That the proposed amendments to the financial regulations as set out inAppendix 1 be approved.

13. CLOSE OF MEETING

The meeting ended at 9.25pm.

MAYOR Wednesday, 15th December 2004

Date of Despatch: 28th October 2004

Contact for Enquiries: Tim Stephens - Tel: (020) 7926 2754 - Fax: (020) 7926 2755 - Email: [email protected] - Net: www.lambeth.gov.uk

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.lambeth.gov.uk/

Documents

COUNCIL MEETING - Lambeth · Brixton Top Cats The Mayor welcomed members of Brixton Top Cats, a Sports project for young people established over 20 years ago running weekly sessions