Agenda and minutes

Cabinet - Monday 13 July 2015 7.00 pm

Venue: Room 8, Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton Hill, SW2 1RW. View directions

Contact: David Rose, Democratic Services Officer, Tel: 020 7926 1037 Email: drose@lambeth.gov.uk 

Items
No. Item

1.

Declarations of Pecuniary Interest

Under Cabinet Rule 1.5.2, where any Cabinet Member has a Disclosable Pecuniary Interest (as defined in the Members’ Code of Conduct (para. 4)) in any matter to be considered at a meeting of the Council, a committee, sub-committee or joint committee, they must withdraw from the meeting room during the whole of the consideration of that matter and must not participate in any vote on that matter unless a dispensation has been obtained from the Monitoring Officer.

Minutes:

There were none.

2.

Minutes of Previous Meeting pdf icon PDF 189 KB

That the minutes of the previous meeting be signed and approved as a correct record of proceedings.

Minutes:

RESOLVED: That the minutes of the previous meeting held on 08 June 2015 be agreed and signed by the Chair as a correct record of the proceedings.

3.

A Priority Action Plan: Lambeth Council’s response to the OFSTED inspection of Children’s Services and the Lambeth Safeguarding Children Board pdf icon PDF 222 KB

    Report 34/15-16

     

    All wards

    Key decision

     

    Deputy Leader (Policy)

    Strategic Director, Delivery

     

    Contact: Paula Royal, Programme Lead, Cooperative Business Development, 020 7926 0088: proyal@lambeth.gov.uk

     

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    (Report 34/15-16) (Key decision)

     

    The Deputy Leader (Policy) introduced the report and confirmed that Paul Curran had been appointed as the new chair of the Local Safeguarding Children’s Board (LSCB) and Ian Smith was introduced as the new Delivery Director of Children’s Social Care:

    ·      That the Children’s Services Improvement Board had been set up and would input into the Priority Action Plan (PAP), with a commitment to engage with staff, Morning Lane (the Department for Education’s (DfE’s) chosen consultants), Ofsted, and the LSCB.  A revised PAP to be brought to Cabinet in October/November 2015.

    ·      Sean Harriss, Chief Executive, commented that the PAP was focused around immediate improvements and, where feasible, levelling up to better/best practice, with an eye for longer-term cultural and structural improvements.  Furthermore, the report would allow the Council to react quickly on opportunities for longer-term improvements.

     

    RESOLVED:

    To agree the current version of the Priority Action Plan as a working document in response to Ofsted’s recommendations and that it will be signed off by the DCS, chief executive and lead member and submitted to Ofsted as Lambeth’s interim plan in August.

4.

Investing in better neighbourhoods and building the homes we need to house the people of Lambeth - Cressingham Gardens estate pdf icon PDF 373 KB

    Report 41/15-16

     

    All wards

    Key decision

     

    Cabinet Member for Housing       

    Strategic Director, Commissioning

     

    Contact: NVokes@lambeth.gov.uk

    Neil Vokes Programme Director Strategic Capital Projects

     

     

    Additional documents:

    Minutes:

    (Report 41/15-16) (Key decision)

     

    The Leader of the Council began the discussion by stating that this project had been ongoing since August 2012 and regretted the time it had taken; there needed to be lessons learnt and these needed to benefit other similar proposed estate regeneration projects.  Although there was not one overriding view from the estate, the Council was committed to improving the estate.

     

    The Cabinet Member for Housing introduced the report:

    ·        He apologised for the process and length of time and said that there had been failings, but a decision needed to be taken.  The launch of the Lambeth Housing Standard (LHS) in 2012 was one of the biggest in the country; however, cuts to funding by central government had left a £56 million short-fall in the project.  The only options that seemed open were through refurbishing or rebuilding homes; but whilst refurbishing did improve homes it could not provide the extra housing the Council so desperately needed and would leave people without a home.  In the test of opinion, 66% of residents lived in poor conditions and 42% were dissatisfied. 

    ·        The Cabinet Member commented upon an email received from a tenant that stated their preference of demolition given the poor state of their property, but admitted this was not a stance shared by all, however, all residents deserved better and the Council had a duty to act.  Refurbishment would not address overcrowding, with a quarter of tenants overcrowded, and in March this option was removed due to a lack of financial viability and to meet residents’ needs.     

    ·         Councillor Matthew Bennett noted that throughout the debate there had been calls of social cleansing, but that this was and remained untrue, whilst the chosen policy met all tests: offering Council housing on a like-for-like basis, increasing bedroom numbers, rehousing residents, increasing the number of social housing; against a central government, London Mayor and failing market seemingly hostile to providing social housing.  There was a choice to campaign from side lines or take a lead to build homes that local families needed. 

    ·        It was also noted that 21,000 persons in Lambeth were awaiting council homes whilst 1,300 were severely overcrowded.  The regeneration figures in the agenda pack represented the baseline, were robust and could withstand changes in finance.

     

    The Leader of the Council introduced the ward councillors to give representation:

    ·        Marcia Cameron, ward councillor, stated that more information on what residents wanted was needed with improved support and advice, and raised concerns over secure and long-term tenancies, freeholders, and shared equity.

    ·        Mary Atkins, ward councillor, had been involved for two years; affirmed that the issues were around overcrowding and conditions, and that the judgement, on balance, was correct.  She commented that the low number of new homes at council rent was not expected and asked how residents would be involved in future.  There remained issues with trust, poor communication, council rents, tenancy agreements, and mortgages, which would need solutions.

     

    The following representations were heard:

    ·        Fatima Elmoudden, Cressingham Project Board and  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4.

5.

Future Brixton: Somerleyton Road pdf icon PDF 197 KB

    Report 40/15-16

     

    Coldharbour Ward

    Key decision

     

    Councillor Matthew Bennett Cabinet Member Housing; and

    Councillor Jack Hopkins, Cabinet Member for Jobs and Growth,

    Strategic Director, Delivery

     

    Contact: Contact: NVokes@lambeth.gov.uk

    Neil Vokes Programme Director Strategic Capital Projects

     

    Minutes:

    (Report 40/15-16) (Key decision)

     

    The Cabinet Member for Housing And Jobs and Growth introduced the report:

    ·      The Somerleyton Road project was a unique and ambitious new approach to the creation of housing and facilities of community benefit.   The original estimate showed flats for development, flexible community space, community trust, and local people building the homes they want to be in; but was now enhanced to include 301 homes, 65 extra care homes, children facilities, a community gym, retail and work spaces, and the provision of a centralised energy centre.  There was also a partnership between Igloo, Ovalhouse Theatre and Brixton Green, and a new community body to absorb additional dialogue. 

     

    At this point the Leader of the Council extended the guillotine.

     

    ·      The report author said that the technical paper sought to authorise the continuation of the Igloo Regeneration Ltd contract to stage 2; with the creation of 5 architecturally different blocks (each designed by a different architect) creating interesting diverse streets, but all of the same quality.  The policy was tenure blind, with no differentiation; and planning submission was set for August 2015, with a further Cabinet report in March 2016 when planning permission had also been approved.  There had been growth in the scope of the project, with associated increased development costs and other building work in London, but the value generated had also increased.  It would try to deliver 59% affordable housing and they were currently looking at extra efficiencies, whilst key decisions during procurement could be delegated to Cabinet Members or to the Strategic Director, Delivery.

    ·      The Cabinet Member for Health and Wellbeing said with such a large amount of spend there was a need to work with small-medium enterprises (SMEs) in the supply chain to make sure money was well spent.

    ·      The Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care praised the good work and asked how long the regeneration would take and what would happen to the Lambeth and Southwark Community Transport (LaSCoT) currently sited there.

    ·      The Cabinet Member for Environment & Sustainability praised the exciting and innovative community-led scheme and the centralised energy system, but enquired as to ensuring that building contractors of the highest credentials and background are met in delivery and sustainability of the project.

    ·      The Deputy Leader (Finance & Investment) enquired as to the financial viability if central government proposals (1% reduction in social rent) went ahead.

    ·      Report authors confirmed that LaSCoT had been in discussion for some time and there were other depot locations around London with good lines and communications, so the development was not too negative on their outlook.  The previous work of Brixton Green highlighted that sustainability formed a fundamental ethic and Igloo’s ‘footprint policy’ of sustainability was also noted, whilst the centralised energy network would help ensure it hit these targets. As to the financial viability; at present there was a net value, with the main driver being affordability, and even with 1% reduction in social rent, this still retained a positive value overall.

    ·      The Leader of the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5.

6.

Kennington, Oval and Vauxhall Neighbourhood Area and Neighbourhood Forum Application pdf icon PDF 1 MB

    Report 33/15-16

     

    Oval, Princes and Bishops wards

    Key decision

     

    Cabinet Member for Jobs and Growth, Councillor Jack Hopkins

    Strategic Director, Delivery

     

    Contact: Alan Vinall, Delivery Lead, Planning Strategy and Policy

    AVinall@lambeth.gov.uk,020 7926 1212

     

     

    Minutes:

    (Report 33/15-16) (Key decision)

     

    The Cabinet Member for Jobs and Growth introduced the report:

    ·      31,000 people were expected to benefit from being in the neighbourhood area, and he was confident that with help support local Councillors it would be successful.

    ·      The report authors stated that this was now very familiar to the organisation and the second such area forum to come to Cabinet.  It would help engage with residents, but was not just about numbers of sign-on.  The report sought endorsement on that basis and would be inclusive of all priority groups.

    ·      The Cabinet Member for Adult Social Care commented that reaching out to the wider community was not just about numbers; and, citing Open World in Norwood, which had drawn persons in who would not normally sign on for forums, but as a result had a very diverse group without needing too many meetings and showed how reaching out could result in success.

    ·      The Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods praised the consultation and the hard work gone into it, and told colleagues that this presented a good challenge for Lambeth in reaching out, but needed to ensure there was value for money.  There was a need to recognise the burden on residents and as councillors at the heart of communities they needed to make the effort to ensure achievement.

    ·      The Cabinet Member for Children and Families stated that localism was cross-party issue which councillors from all persuasions believed in and wished this scheme well.  As a local Councillor she would like to get involved; whilst local activity and campaigns were needed to get more people networking.

    ·      The Deputy Leader (Policy) also extended her best wishes, reading out equalities panel over and above, but was concerned that initial legislation needed help feeding into communities which would present a significant challenge to ensure they work with Councillors.

    ·      The Leader of the Council agreed to add equality panel recommendations.

     

    RESOLVED:

    1.   That Cabinet notes the results of the publication of the Kennington, Oval and Vauxhall neighbourhood forum and neighbourhood area applications.

    2.   That Cabinet designates the Kennington, Oval and Vauxhall neighbourhood area as shown in Map (a) in appendix 1.

    3.  That Cabinet designates the Kennington, Oval and Vauxhall Forum as a neighbourhood forum.

    4.  That Cabinet instructs officers to publicise its decisions in relations to recommendations (2) and (3) in accordance with the statutory requirements.