This week in Greenwich:

• The Health and Adult Social Care Scrutiny Panel met on Thursday 07 November 2024 and received updates on mental health services and integrated commissioning arrangements.

Health and Adult Social Care Scrutiny Panel - Thursday 07 November 2024

The Health and Adult Social Care Scrutiny Panel noted both the Mental Health update presented by Lorraine Regan and the Integrated Commissioning update presented by Lisa Wilson. They also agreed to add a discussion of the proportion of the Integrated Care Board (ICB) budget that is allocated to mental health to their next meeting, to take place on 23 January 2025.

This is reminiscent of a similar request made by the Panel at their meeting on 19 September 2024, when they asked for a report on the proportion of NHS spending that is spent on mental health. This report did not materialise, as was highlighted by Councillor Matthew Morrow at this meeting.

Mental Health Update

Lorraine Regan, Director for Community Mental Health and Learning Disabilities at Oxleas NHS Foundation Trust provided an update on the provision of mental health services in Greenwich. She highlighted the impact that the COVID-19 pandemic and the cost of living crisis have had on mental health services, stating that demand has increased by 80% since 2019.

Councillor Matthew Morrow raised the issue of the proportion of NHS spending that is spent on mental health, noting that this proportion has fallen for the second consecutive year despite the recent investment highlighted by Ms Regan. This was echoed by members of the public, who stated that whilst they appreciated the efforts made by the council, the current level of service was not meeting the needs of the community, particularly at The Source, a health centre in Horn Park. Ms Regan agreed that more money would be beneficial, stating that there's definitely more we could do if the resources were available.

Integrated Commissioning Update

Lisa Wilson, the integrated Director of Commissioning for adults in Greenwich provided an update on integrated commissioning arrangements and outcomes. She described the work that had been done in recent years to develop a joined-up health and wellbeing strategy for the borough, which she summarised as:

We want to ensure that in Greenwich, people’s health, care, learning, wellbeing and relationships support them in living their best lives. To do this we need to be commissioning for transformational change in the way we deliver our services for people, neighbourhoods and place. Our ambition is to enable our residents, providers and other stakeholders to co-design the development of our services, based on what matters most to Greenwich people. This will mean a far greater focus on local services, join-up, outcomes, collaboration and impact. Preventing avoidable poor outcomes, promoting and protecting good health, learning, safety and wellbeing and tackling health and care inequalities will remain key priorities.

Ms Wilson highlighted the Assistive Technology Enabled Care (ATEC) scheme, which will launch in early 2025. Assistive technology is any item, piece of equipment, software program, or product system that is used to increase, maintain, or improve the functional capabilities of persons with disabilities. For example, a wheelchair is assistive technology, as is a screen reader for a blind person. She stated that, from the council's current knowledge, ATEC will be the only fully integrated assistive technology service in the country, combining health and social care needs into a single assessment. She also cited improvements to the continuing healthcare system, which is now meeting its target of assessing 100% of referrals within 28 days. Continuing healthcare is a package of care that is arranged and funded solely by the NHS for individuals who are not in hospital but have complex health needs. It is provided to people aged 18 or over to meet physical or mental health needs that have arisen because of disability, accident or illness.

Ms Wilson's update was challenged by several members of the Panel, who felt that the report lacked substance and was overly aspirational. Councillor Sarah-Jane Merrill stated that she found the report to be meaningless and that a report containing straightforward examples would have been preferable. Councillor 'Lade Olugbemi echoed this, highlighting a lack of detailed information on contract monitoring processes, and asked how the council could intervene to prevent an overproliferation of supported living accommodation in Thamesmead. Supported Living is a type of housing for people with a learning disability, mental health condition or other support needs. Ms Wilson acknowledged the panel's concerns and stated that she would provide clearer examples in future reports.

Commissioning of Future Reports

The Panel agreed to request that representatives of the ICB attend their meeting on 23 January 2025 to discuss the proportion of the ICB budget that is spent on mental health. The panel also noted that they would be receiving reports on GP access and neighbourhood health plans at the meeting.

• The General Purposes Committee met on Wednesday 30 October 2024 and discussed a number of topics, including the appointment of chief officers, the appointment of members to committees and outside bodies, and the adoption of new digital and data policies. They also agreed to continue paying higher salaries for specialist technology staff.
• The Organisation and Communities Scrutiny Panel met on Thursday 31 October 2024 and reviewed the performance of Human Resources and Legal Services, received an update on Councillor memberships, and noted the work programme for the next meeting of the Panel.
• A meeting of Full Council was scheduled for Wednesday 30 October 2024, but was cancelled.
• The Overview and Scrutiny Committee was due to meet on Wednesday 30 October 2024, but no transcript is yet available.

General Purposes Committee - Wednesday 30 October 2024

The General Purposes Committee met on Wednesday 30 October 2024 and agreed the salary range of three new Chief Officer roles, agreed the appointment of members to committees and outside bodies, approved the adoption of a new digital policy suite and agreed to continue the existing departure from the Market Supplement Allowance Policy for specialist Digital and Technology posts.

Appointment of Chief Officers

The committee approved the establishment of appointment panels for three new Chief Officer roles:

• Director of Legal and Democratic Services
• Director of Health & Adult Services
• Assistant Director, Social Care Operations (Health & Adult Services)

The committee was told that the Director of Health & Adult Services post was being recruited for as the previous postholder had moved to a role in the civil service, and that the Assistant Director, Social Care Operations (Health & Adult Services) post was a new post that would manage service managers for front line social work teams such as hospital discharge team, reablement, complex care and occupational therapy.

The role of a Chief Officer is to provide strategic leadership to a council department. They are responsible for developing and implementing council policy, and for managing the department's budget and staff. The appointment of Chief Officers is a matter for the full council, but the General Purposes Committee is responsible for making recommendations to the council on appointments.

Appointment to Committees and Outside Bodies

Member Level Bodies

The Committee agreed the appointment of Councillor Charlie Davis¹ to four Member Level Bodies following the by-election in Eltham Town and Avery Hill ward:

• Transport and Place Scrutiny Panel
• Inclusive Economy and Culture Scrutiny Panel
• Overview and Scrutiny Call-in Sub-Committee
• Margaret McMillan Field Study Centre Sub-Committee

The Committee also agreed the appointment of Councillor Matt Hartley² to three Member Level Bodies:

• Organisation and Communities Scrutiny Panel
• Overview and Scrutiny Call-in Sub-Committee
• Overview and Scrutiny Call-in Sub-Committee (deputy)

Outside Bodies

The committee agreed to appoint Councillor Sarah-Jane Merrill³ to Woodlands Farm Trust. Councillors are appointed to a range of committees and outside bodies. These bodies are responsible for a variety of functions, including scrutinising the work of the council, representing the council on other organisations, and managing specific council assets.

Digital and Data Policy Suite

The committee approved the adoption of a suite of new digital and data policies. These were:

• Acceptable Use Policy
• Cyber Security Policy
• Data Sharing Policy
• Data Deletion and Retention Policy
• Mobile Device Policy
• Bring Your Own Device (BYOD) Policy

The committee was told that the policies had been developed to replace existing policies that did not take account of recent changes to the way the Council was working, such as hybrid working, which allows staff to work from home or in the office.

The Committee asked if the new policies included any new enforcements on staff regarding working practices. In particular, the Committee wanted to know if the Bring Your Own Device policy would require staff to use their personal phones for work purposes. They were assured that this was optional.

The bring your own device is optional. So these aren’t enforcements that we’re bringing in to staff. It’s something that we’re doing which has MTFS savings potential attached to it, but it’s certainly nothing that’s obligatory.

The committee was told that the policies had been developed with the help of Digital Heads of Service, subject matter experts and trade unions, and that no objections had been received from trade unions. The Committee also asked if the policy had gone through any scrutiny yet, and was told that this would take place in January 2025.

Market Supplement Allowance Policy

The committee agreed to continue the existing departure from the Market Supplement Allowance Policy for specialist Digital and Technology posts for the foreseeable future. This policy had been agreed by the Committee three years previously to allow the council to pay competitive salaries for digital roles. The Committee was told that the policy was a financial success, with the cost of hiring 16 staff via an agency being 75% higher than using the market supplement policy, which provides an uplift of 9.3% on salary. This was the equivalent of a £370,000 saving per year.

Overall, 16 people in the digital team, that’s out of a head count of about 95, 16 people are in receipt of some type of market supplement. The total outlay to the council is 91,000 pounds as a result of that. The equivalent to pay that through an agency would be somewhere in the 300 or 400,000. So we think it’s about a 75% saving based on doing that through an external agency.

The Committee asked when the team planned to depart from the Market Supplement Allowance and if Royal Greenwich was paying more than other Councils for digital roles. They were told that this would have to be nationally negotiated as it was difficult for local authorities to compete with private sector salaries and that Greenwich's benchmarking was so good that:

the rest of the country now follows our benchmarking data. That’s because we’ve been scraping this data from publicly available job ads for four years now. So the London office of technology and innovation have taken our salary benchmarking and now publishing that for other authorities to use. So we’re very confident that the way we pay is the right balance between economic efficiency for this council and the realistic digital job market.

Organisation and Communities Scrutiny Panel - Thursday 31 October 2024

The Organisation and Communities Scrutiny Panel met on Thursday 31 October 2024 to discuss the work of the Council's Human Resources and Legal teams, to receive an update on Councillor memberships, and to note the work programme for its meeting in January 2025.

Human Resources Update 2023/24

The Panel considered a report on the work of the Human Resources Team in 2023/24.

Local authorities are facing a number of challenges when it comes to recruiting and retaining staff. The report explains that:

The world of work has changed drastically since the COVID-19 pandemic. As we recover from the impact, we find ourselves faced with an employment landscape that has shifted considerably. In addition to the lingering effects of the pandemic, factors such as increased economic inactivity in the working age population and acute shortages in some professions, have created challenges.

The report described how the HR Team is responding to these challenges by developing a new Workforce Strategy.

The report also described the council's work to improve the diversity of its workforce. It stated that:

While our staff representation is in line with many other organisations, there is nonetheless further work to be done to improve our organisation’s workforce to ensure it is more representative of the population it serves, particularly at the most senior levels.

The report included a summary of the performance of the Council's apprenticeship schemes. It highlighted a decline in the number of Greenwich Direct Apprenticeship (GDA) roles, saying that Hiring managers cite budget constraints, service pressures, and limited capacity as significant barriers to recruiting and investing in these roles.

The report concluded with a review of the council's health and wellbeing initiatives. It included a summary of sickness absence in the council, highlighting that in 2023/24 sickness absence cost the council £5.97m. It stated that The highest sickness absence reason is stress, depression, mental health and fatigue which accounts for 24.5% of all sickness absences.

Legal Services Performance Update

The panel considered a report on the performance of the council's Legal Services team. The Legal Services team provides legal advice and support to the council. It is also responsible for representing the council in legal proceedings.

The report identified that the team was currently over-performing, saying that:

Even taking into account the expected additional legal work created by the 3 additional posts, there is an overachievement in the output across both years of approximately 15%, due to both efficiencies and effort.

The report provided information about the work undertaken by the team, including:

• Providing legal advice to the council on a wide range of matters, including planning, housing, and environmental health.
• Representing the council in legal proceedings, including prosecutions, judicial reviews, and employment tribunals.
• Drafting and negotiating contracts on behalf of the council.
• Managing the council's insurance arrangements.

It highlighted some of the challenges faced by the Housing and Litigation Team, saying that:

Housing disrepair claims have continued to increase over the last 7 years. In 2023/24, the team dealt with 408 disrepair claims. This is a significant increase on previous years due to a range of factors.

It concluded with a summary of the work of the Legal Support and Practice Management Team, saying that they had put in place several processes to enable efficiencies in both wider Legal Services, and the Organisation.

Declarations of Interests

The panel was asked to note the list of Councillors’ memberships as Council appointed representatives on outside bodies, joint committees and school governing bodies.

The report pack included a table that listed the membership of each councillor. For example, Councillor Pat Greenwell is a member of the Reserves Forces & Cadets Association and a governor of Haimo Primary.

Commissioning of Future Reports

The panel was asked to note the work items that are scheduled to be presented to the meeting of the Organisation and Communities Scrutiny Panel taking place on 15th January 2025.

These include reports on Finance Operations Performance, a Cabinet Member update, a Freedom of Information Monitoring Report, and the commissioning of future reports.

Overview and Scrutiny Committee - Wednesday 30 October 2024

No transcript was available at the time this email was prepared. The Overview and Scrutiny Committee has a very important role as it can scrutinise decisions made, or due to be made, by other committees and the Cabinet, and can make recommendations to those bodies about their decisions. It can also commission its own reports on topics that it deems important.

Full Council - Wednesday 30 October 2024

This meeting was cancelled.

This week in Greenwich:

• The Local Planning Committee met on Tuesday 22 October 2024 and approved an application to amend the opening hours for a new ASDA Express store at 123 Greenwich South Street.

Local Planning Committee - Tuesday 22 October 2024

The Local Planning Committee considered four planning applications on Tuesday 22 October 2024. They approved three applications: an application to amend the opening hours for a new ASDA Express store at 123 Greenwich South Street, an application to construct a single storey rear extension at 43 The Slade and an application to convert a school car park to a Multi-Use Games Area at Plumstead Manor School on Old Mill Road. They also deferred a decision on an application for a change of use of a single family dwellinghouse to a 5 bedroom small House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 24 Lucknow Street in Plumstead.

123 Greenwich South Street

The committee approved a request from ASDA Stores Limited to amend the approved opening hours for their new store at 123 Greenwich South Street. The approved opening hours under the current planning permission (21/1884/MA) are: 6am to 11pm Monday to Saturday, and 7am to 10pm on Sundays and Public Holidays. Deliveries are currently permitted between: 7am and 10pm Monday to Saturday, and 8am to 9pm on Sundays and Public Holidays. The applicant sought permission to amend Condition 17 (Appendices to 123 Greenwich South Street 24.1204.MA) of the approved planning permission to allow the store to open and receive deliveries between: 6am and 11pm, 7 days a week.

Objections had been received from five local residents, including Councillor Pat Greenwell and Councillor Aidan Smith. The residents raised concerns that extending the hours of operation on Sundays would be detrimental to the amenity of local residents and nearby heritage assets. They argued that the changes were not minor in their scope and would result in antisocial behaviour. Concerns were also raised about the noise generated by delivery lorries.

Mr Adam Cundale, Town Planning Manager for ASDA, argued that the proposed changes were necessary to bring Sunday operations in line with those of the rest of the week, and to ensure consistency with other Asda Express stores. He said that the company had done a lot of research on customer preferences, and that their preferred operating model was to have the same operating hours 7 days a week.

After deliberations, the committee voted to approve the application, despite the objections from residents and councillors.

This decision is likely to be controversial, and it will be interesting to see whether the expanded opening hours lead to the problems that residents have predicted.

24 Lucknow Street

The committee considered an application from Mr Held for a change of use from a single family dwelling house to a 5 bedroom small HMO at 24 Lucknow Street in Plumstead. The application also included proposals for the construction of two single storey rear extensions, cycle and refuse storage, and associated external alterations.

Officers recommended that the application be approved, subject to the imposition of conditions. However, 24 objections had been received from local residents. The residents raised a number of concerns, including the potential for overcrowding, increased parking stress, inadequate waste management, noise pollution, and a negative impact on the character of the neighbourhood.

Councillor Asgar, the local ward councillor, objected to the proposal, arguing that the street was already very densely populated and that the proposed rear extensions would overshadow the gardens of neighbouring properties. She also raised concerns about the adequacy of the proposed soundproofing between the HMO and the neighbouring properties.

Several residents also addressed the committee, raising concerns about the fire safety of HMOs, the adequacy of the proposed spiral staircase, the lack of consultation, the impact on the shared drainage system, and the potential for the HMO to fall short of the minimum space standards required by the London Plan.

During the discussion, members of the committee raised their own concerns about the narrow width of the corridor, the adequacy of the kitchen space and the location of the cycle store in the rear garden. They decided to defer a decision on the application, given that the applicant was not present at the meeting to answer questions about the concerns raised by residents.

This application highlights the challenges involved in finding a balance between the need for new housing and the need to protect the amenity of existing residents. It will be interesting to see whether the applicant is able to address the concerns raised by residents and the committee when the application is reconsidered.

43 The Slade

The committee considered an application from Councillor Issy Cooke for the construction of a single storey rear extension at 43 The Slade in Plumstead. Officers recommended that the application be approved and no objections were received. The committee voted to approve the application.

Plumstead Manor School

The committee approved an application from Plumstead Manor School to convert a car park to a Multi-Use Games Area (MUGA) at the school on Old Mill Road. The application had received 13 objections from local residents, concerned about the loss of 37 staff car parking spaces, increased noise and disturbance from pupils using the MUGA and the impact the MUGA would have on the visual amenity of the area.

Mr Paul Nichols, the agent for the applicant, argued that the MUGA was essential to improve the school's PE provision, noting that the school had only 8% of its required open space.

The committee decided to add a condition to the planning permission requiring the provision of secure cycle storage at the site, and an amendment to Condition 10 of the proposed conditions to allow the MUGA to remain open until 7pm, seven days a week.

This application highlights the importance of providing adequate sports facilities for young people. The decision to approve the application is likely to be welcomed by the school and its pupils.

This article only describes the main points of discussion and the decisions made. It does not include all the details of the applications or the discussions that took place. You can find more information about these applications on the Council’s website.

This week in Greenwich:

• The Unknown committee met on Thursday 17 October 2024 to discuss unknown topics.
• The Cabinet met on Wednesday 16 October 2024 and agreed to begin the sale or long lease of 11 properties owned by the Council, including three car parks, noted the Council's good progress on improving its housing compliance, and noted the summary of waivers and variations to the Council's Contract Standing Orders.
• The General Purposes Committee met on Wednesday 16 October 2024 to discuss unknown topics.

Cabinet - Wednesday 16 October 2024

The Cabinet decided to approve the sale or long leasehold disposal of 11 properties. They also noted the Council's good progress on improving its housing compliance, especially on fire, asbestos and legionella safety. However, there are still issues with electrical safety that need to be addressed. The Cabinet also noted the summary of waivers and variations to the Council's Contract Standing Orders for the first six months of 2024. This is a regular report that we have seen before in previous emails, for example on 18 September 2024, when the Cabinet received a similar report covering the period from July 2023 to June 2024.

Asset Review Initial Outcomes

The Cabinet agreed to begin the sale or long lease of 11 properties owned by the Council, detailed in Appendix 1 of the Asset Review Initial Outcomes report. The report explains the reasoning behind the disposals:

Holding on to assets that cost the Council money or are not performing well or are not serving a service use is not something that the Council can afford to do.

The sites identified for disposal included three car parks - Abery Street Car Park, Charlton Village Car Park and Old Dover Road Car Park - as well as the White Hart Road Depot in Plumstead, a former power station. The report notes that the car parks are in areas that are well-served by public transport, and their disposal would support the Council's Transport Strategy, which aims to encourage more sustainable forms of transport. This is similar to the justification given for the proposed disposal of two car parks on the Greenwich Peninsula in a previous email about the meeting of the Planning Board on 08 October 2024. In that case, the applicant, Knight Dragon, argued that the car parks were underused and that their disposal would free up land for residential development.

A member of the public, Carol Keanor from the Charlton Society, addressed the Cabinet to object to the disposal of the Charlton Village Car Park. She argued that the car park is regularly used, particularly by people attending events at the Charlton Assembly Rooms, and that its disposal would have a negative impact on the village. She also argued that the car park is part of the Royal Greenwich Heritage Trust estate, and should not be disposed of.

Officers clarified that the car park is owned by the Council, not the Heritage Trust, and that its sale would not prevent its future use as a car park. They also noted that the Council has been experiencing problems with vandalism at the site, and that installing security cameras had incurred significant costs.

Annual Housing Compliance Report 2024

The Cabinet noted the progress made on improving housing safety and compliance in the Council's homes. The report is part of the Housing Assurance Framework approved by the Cabinet in 2021, which aims to ensure that the Council is meeting the standards set by the Regulator of Social Housing (RSH).

The report shows that the Council has made good progress in addressing issues with fire, asbestos and legionella safety. In particular, all residential buildings now have a valid Fire Risk Assessment (FRA) and all communal areas have an up-to-date asbestos survey. The Council has also been working to implement a new Asbestos Register for its homes, which will help to ensure that residents and staff are kept safe from asbestos.

However, there are still some outstanding issues with electrical safety. The report notes that the Council is working to complete the fixed electrical testing programme and the associated Electrical Installation Condition Reports (EICRs), but that this is taking longer than expected. This is reminiscent of the findings of the Annual Housing Compliance Report presented to the Cabinet on 16 October 2024, which noted that the Council had made good progress on fire, asbestos and legionella safety, but that there were still some outstanding issues with electrical safety.

The report also provides an update on the work being done to tackle damp and mould in Council homes. The Council has set up a new “Damp and Mould Team” and has introduced a new triage process to identify and address issues more quickly.

We've seen a reduction from, say, people waiting months for somebody to come around and address the damp and mould to people waiting days or weeks at most for somebody to do that.

The Council is also working to comply with the requirements of the Building Safety Act 2022. This includes preparing Building Safety Cases for each of the 67 high-rise buildings that the Council owns. The Building Safety Act 2022 introduces a new regulatory regime for high-rise residential buildings. It aims to improve the safety of these buildings and to ensure that residents are protected. The Act creates a new Building Safety Regulator, which will be responsible for overseeing the new regime.

Contract Standing Orders - Exemptions / Variations (1 January 2024 to 30 June 2024)

The Cabinet noted the summary of waivers and variations to the Council's Contract Standing Orders. These are reported every six months in accordance with the Council's rules.

Now, whilst a competitive process is preferred to establish a contract in most scenarios, there are also a number of valid reasons why contracts may be awarded without undergoing a formal competitive process. And this is allowed within RBG governance and provided for under current legislation.

The report sets out the details of the contracts where the normal rules were waived, including the amount of money involved, the reasons for the waiver, and any further action to be taken.

One significant item was the direct award of a contract to Elites Landscapes Limited for £10,425,000. This was to complete the Woolwich Public Realm Works, which include Beresford Square and Powers Street, after the insolvency of the original contractor. The report notes that Elites was already working on the project as a subcontractor, and that the direct award allowed the works to be completed on time and within budget.

General Purposes Committee - Wednesday 16 October 2024

No transcript is currently available for the meeting of the General Purposes Committee that was held on Wednesday 16 October 2024.

Unknown Committee - Thursday 17 October 2024

No transcript is currently available for the meeting of the Unknown committee that was held on Thursday 17 October 2024.

This week in Greenwich:

• The Planning Board met on Tuesday 08 October 2024 to discuss three planning applications. The applications for a mixed-use development at 2B Rathmore Road in Charlton, and for the conversion of Victoria House on Shooters Hill Road to a 70-bedroom care home were both deferred, while an application for the retention of a decked car park on the Greenwich Peninsula for a period of up to 10 years was approved.
• There is very limited information available about the meeting of the Cabinet on Tuesday 08 October 2024.
• The Licensing Sub-Committee B was scheduled to consider an application for a new premises licence for Suya Spot on Spray Street in Woolwich at its meeting on Thursday 10 October 2024.

Planning Board - Tuesday 08 October 2024

The Planning Board considered three applications at its meeting on Tuesday 08 October 2024. Applications for a mixed-use development at 2B Rathmore Road in Charlton, and for the conversion of Victoria House on Shooters Hill Road to a 70-bedroom care home were both deferred. An application for the retention of a temporary decked car park on the Greenwich Peninsula for a period of up to 10 years was approved.

2B Rathmore Road Charlton

This application sought permission to demolish the Riverside Garage at 2B Rathmore Road, Charlton, and build a 5-storey block of 20 flats, with a ground floor storage unit. The site is located on the corner of Rathmore Road and Victoria Way.

The board deferred the application to allow the applicant more time to respond to the concerns of the committee.

Viability

As with several other recent applications, including one for Pound Place discussed at the Planning Board’s meeting on 20 August 2024, this application attracted attention because of the applicant’s claim that it was not viable to include any affordable housing on the site.

The scheme does not clear the provision of on site affordable dwellings.

The applicant offered £200,000 towards the provision of off-site affordable housing within the borough.

Councillor David Gardner, Labour Councillor for the Charlton Hornfair ward, was unconvinced by the viability assessment, and questioned why the applicant was not able to provide more affordable housing.

Councillor Gardner also raised concerns that he had received correspondence from lobbyists suggesting that viability assessments were being used to avoid building affordable homes.

Design

The design of the development was also questioned by several members of the board, with concerns raised about the relationship of the building to the surrounding area, the proposed materials, and the impact on the amenity of neighbouring residents.

Councillor Pat Greenwell, Labour Councillor for the Peninsula ward, questioned the choice of materials for the development, expressing concern that the grey building would be incongruous next to the adjacent Gateway building, which is under consideration for inclusion in the Council’s register of Locally Listed Buildings¹.

If there’s anything that can be done with regards to the character of the windows and also the colours, that's a great to list a building. We need to preserve it. It's not just the building we're preserving. We're also preserving the environment. It's a heritage. That's one thing we should be proud of that we have in the borough. And so anything that would deflavour it, we need to make sure we remove it.

The planning officer, Mr Sloane, explained that the applicant had made a number of amendments to the design in response to feedback from the council, and that a condition would be placed on the permission to ensure that the final choice of brick was approved by the Council.

Overall the materials were found to be acceptable. The urban designer felt that further work could be done to ensure that the brick choice is compatible with the local environment so that final brick colour is secured by condition and full bricks are to be used to ensure high quality construction and overall the materiality was found to be positive.

Loss of the Garage

The loss of the Riverside Garage was the main theme of the objections raised by local residents and businesses at the meeting.

Local resident Mr Carlo Fabbrini, for example, told the board that he strongly objected to the proposal, and argued that the existing garage was an important part of the local community.

This garage is not closing due to lack of demand as mentioned by the developers. It’s thriving

The applicant’s agent, Mr Mark Westcott of Kearney Sweeney Planning Consultants, explained that they had submitted evidence showing that there was a high level of need for storage units in the borough. He also explained that Greenwich has more MOT garages than many other London boroughs, and so the loss of Riverside Garage would not have a significant impact on local people’s ability to have their cars tested.

"We have submitted evidence detailing Greenwich to be the seventh highest London borough based on the number of auto repair garages, as well as indicating a need for storage space, especially smaller units, such as that proposed”

Councillor Greenwell responded to this by questioning whether a storage facility was an appropriate use for the site, given the narrowness of the pavement on Victoria Way and the proximity of the site to Charlton School.

Decision

The Chair of the Planning Board, Councillor Gary Dillon, Labour Councillor for the Glyndon ward, summarised the committee’s concerns, and suggested deferring the application to allow the applicant to address the concerns about the viability, design and impact of the proposed storage facility. This suggestion was supported by the board.

1A & 1C Eynsham Drive Abbey Wood

This application sought permission to demolish an existing hand car wash and PDSA pet hospital and build a mixed-use development consisting of four buildings, ranging from 3 to 17 storeys in height. The proposed development would include a replacement pet hospital, a 110-bedroom hotel, and 487 co-living rooms. The co-living aspect of the proposal attracted a number of questions from the board, including concerns about affordability.

Co-Living

The applicant's architect, Ms Felici Crickler of Asale Architects, explained that co-living was a new model of housing aimed at young single people or couples. She argued that the development would provide high-quality accommodation at an affordable rent, and that the extensive communal facilities would create a strong sense of community.

“Co-living is a really important type of new tenure, I think, not only because it offers high quality solutions for renters, but mainly because it's responding to a need which is not currently being met by the general housing market today”

The board questioned how co-living differed from traditional HMOs, with Councillor Claire Burke, Labour Councillor for the Eltham South ward, seeking clarity on the typical layout of a co-living room.

Ms Crickler explained that residents would have their own private bathroom, and that the rent would include all bills.

Design and Heritage

The proposed development is similar in appearance to a development that was approved in 2020, and the applicant's agent, Mr Richard Quelch of Quod, argued that the new scheme would provide a number of benefits, including new homes, jobs, and improvements to the public realm.

The applicant is aware of the pressing need to deliver housing and wants to ensure that the site does not remain vacant but contributes towards the Council's housing target.

Councillor Clive Mardner, a resident of Abbey Wood, objected to the application. He argued that the height of the buildings was not in keeping with the character of Abbey Wood and that the development was overdevelopment of the site.

Councillor Mardner was also concerned that the development would set a precedent for further tall buildings in the area.

In response, Mr Quelch explained that the height of the buildings was broadly similar to that of the previously approved development, and that the proposed co-living element would provide a new form of housing in the borough.

The officer’s report identified that the development would cause less than substantial harm to the setting of the Ruins of Lesnes Abbey and Lesnes Abbey Scheduled Monument, but argued that this harm would be outweighed by the public benefits of the scheme.

“The proposed development would have a very low magnitude of impact to heritage assets”

Viability

Again, the lack of affordable housing on the site was a major topic of discussion, with Councillor Lade Durojaiye, Labour Councillor for the Glyndon ward, expressing concern that this development would not help to alleviate the housing crisis.

The applicant initially presented the scheme as unviable, but following discussions with Royal Borough of Greenwich and the Greater London Authority (GLA), the applicant offered a payment in lieu of on-site affordable housing of £7,389,873.

Parking and Public Transport

The application proposed 49 parking spaces for the development, which Councillor Gardner argued was excessive, given the proximity of the site to Abbey Wood Station, which offers good access to both Crossrail and Southeastern services.

The officer, Ms Leslie, explained that the parking provision would be reviewed as part of the scheme.

The applicant’s agent, Mr Dave Thompson, explained that the proposed parking provision was based on the experience of the PDSA at its other sites across the country.

Currently, we have to drive up efficiency throughout our sites due to the financial issues that we’re actually facing as a charity

Decision

The board agreed with the officer’s recommendation and voted to approve the application, subject to the completion of a Section 106 agreement, referral to the Mayor of London, and the conditions proposed in the report.

Land to the west of West Parkside and east of Millennium Way Greenwich Peninsula

This application requested permission for the retention of a temporary decked car park on the Greenwich Peninsula for a period of up to 10 years. The car park is required to ensure compliance with an agreement between the owners of the O2 arena and the Greater London Authority (GLA), which requires that a minimum of 2,000 car parking spaces be provided on the Peninsula.

Principle of Development

The applicant, Knight Dragon, is the developer behind the Greenwich Peninsula masterplan. Their agent, Ms Marie-Claire Marsh, explained that the decked car park is needed to allow the closure of several surface-level car parks, which would then free up land for residential development.

“This agreement is separate from planning permission, however, it is highlighted to members that the car parking agreement requires a minimum of 2,000 car parking spaces on the Greenwich Peninsula at all times. This is a legal requirement”

She also explained that the decked car park was a temporary structure, and that it was not cost-effective to invest in measures to mitigate its visual impact.

"We’ve spoken to AEG and the GLA, we’ve listened to David’s concerns about the car park numbers but it’s a world class entertainments venue on our doorstep that provides great tourism, great employment and all the other activities that it does provide for the community there, and they’re the experts in operating this business right now and they’re standing by their requirement that they need 2,000 car parking spaces, our challenge is to manage it as efficiently, as effectively as possible.”

The principle of the application was supported by TfL and the Royal Borough’s Highways department.

Design

Councillor Gardner objected to the application, describing the car park as an “eyesore”, arguing that the car park should be landscaped and fitted with solar panels.

This car park was, we were told at the time, only built for this awful Silvertown tunnel. And it is appalling

Ms Marsh responded by explaining that the car park was a temporary structure and that it was not considered cost-effective to invest in landscaping or solar panels. She also stated that AEG had reviewed their parking requirements and considered that the provision of 2,000 parking spaces was necessary.

Decision

The board voted to approve the application subject to the conditions set out in the report.

Cabinet - Tuesday 08 October 2024

Very limited information is available about the meeting of the Cabinet that was due to be held on Tuesday 08 October 2024. Cabinet meetings discuss some of the most impactful decisions made by the Council and so this absence is significant.

Licensing Sub-Committee B - Thursday 10 October 2024

This Licensing Sub-Committee B meeting was scheduled to consider a new application for Suya Spot in Woolwich to be able to serve hot food and drinks until midnight.

The report pack prepared for the Sub-Committee's consideration explained that there had been a number of complaints about anti-social behaviour in the vicinity of the premises.

The report pack stated that:

The area at the end of Spray Street, where the premises are located near to the street’s junction with Woolwich New Road, has been subject to general local resident complaints since circa April 2024 concerning groups of up to 40 males gathering in the street and drinking alcohol.

The report pack also noted that the premises are located within the Woolwich Town Centre Cumulative Impact Zone (CIZ), as prescribed by the current Royal Borough of Greenwich Licensing Policy.²

This meant that the Sub-Committee was scheduled to consider whether a new licence will not add to the cumulative impact experienced.

The report pack suggested that the Sub-Committee could choose to grant the licence, grant it with modified conditions, add additional conditions, refuse to specify a person as the Designated Premises Supervisor, or refuse the application altogether. The report pack also listed a series of conditions offered by the applicant, including:

Signage shall be clearly displayed requesting customers to leave quietly and have respect for neighbouring residents and businesses, and not to loiter on the pavement outside.

Several additional conditions were added to the application by the Metropolitan Police and Royal Borough of Greenwich Safer Spaces, including the following condition requested by Safer Spaces:

A Customer Dispersal Policy shall be agreed with RBG Licensing and Greenwich Police Licensing.

The report pack explained that two local residents had submitted letters of representation about the application, objecting to the granting of a licence on the grounds of prevention of public nuisance.

PC Sam Bobb of Greenwich Police Licensing, also submitted a representation, in which he asked for the addition of the following condition to the licence:

No noise generated on the premises shall emanate from the premises, which gives rise to a nuisance.

A further representation was submitted by Ms Lorna Revell, Community Safety Enforcement Supervisor with Royal Borough of Greenwich Safer Spaces. Ms Revell explained that her team had received complaints from residents regarding:

… loud music being played, people being intoxicated, using their gardens as a toilet, and witnessing fights taking place outside of their homes.

She asked the Sub-Committee to consider adding conditions to the licence to prevent the placement of chairs outside of the premises, to prevent music from being audible from outside the premises, and to ensure that a dispersal policy was agreed with the Council and the Police.

The report pack stated that Mr Alayo had agreed to the condition proposed by PC Bobb, but that he had not yet agreed to the conditions proposed by Ms Revell.

The report pack also summarised the relevant policies from the Council's Statement of Licensing Policy, and the Government's Guidance under Section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003, and explained the procedure for determining such applications.

Last week in Greenwich:

• The Inclusive Economy and Culture Scrutiny Panel meeting scheduled for Wednesday 02 October 2024 was cancelled.
• The Transport and Place Scrutiny Panel met on Thursday 03 October 2024 to discuss flood risk and water management in Greenwich, receive an update on the Local Plan, planning enforcement and planning performance, and to note the work items that are scheduled to be presented to the meeting of the Panel taking place on 20 November 2024.
• The Local Planning Committee approved all three applications on its agenda when it met on Tuesday 01 October 2024: the construction of a new dwelling behind 240 Woolwich Road, the change of use of 50 Sidcup Road to a seven-person HMO, and the retention of a rear outbuilding at 126 Alwold Crescent.
• The Eltham Crematorium Joint Committee was scheduled to receive an update from the Bereavement Services Manager, an update from the Programme Manager and to note the projected financial position of the Crematorium when it met on Wednesday 02 October 2024.
• The Licensing Sub-Committee A was scheduled to consider whether to grant a new premises licence to Asda Stores Limited for their new Asda Express store at 15-17 Blackheath Village when it met on Thursday 03 October 2024.

Local Planning Committee - 01 October 2024

The Local Planning Committee considered three planning applications on Tuesday 01 October 2024. The committee approved all three applications: the construction of a new dwelling behind 240 Woolwich Road, the change of use of 50 Sidcup Road to a seven-person HMO, and the retention of a rear outbuilding at 126 Alwold Crescent. The committee also received a presentation from Mr Kelvin Ho of Hoc Studio Architects about the design of the proposed dwelling behind 240 Woolwich Road.

Imperial Chef 240 Woolwich Road, Greenwich

The application sought permission to demolish ancillary structures behind the Imperial Chef takeaway at 240 Woolwich Road and build a two-bedroom dwelling. The site is located on the south side of Woolwich Road at its junction with Dupree Road.

The committee heard that there had been twelve objections to the proposal, and that Councillor Nick Williams, Labour Councillor for the Greenwich West ward, had requested the application be called in. Objections focussed on the impact of the development on the amenity of neighbours, and the lack of car parking to be provided.

Officers consider that the proposed development is acceptable and members are asked to consider the recommendation chair.

The applicant’s agent, Mr Kelvin Ho of Hoc Studio Architects, addressed the committee. He explained that the scheme had been developed to address concerns about overlooking and lack of daylight, and said

the dwelling house is designed to set back from the main building of Woolwich Road to avoid overlooking overlooking issue and blocking daylight

Mr Ho said that the design of the dwelling would match the existing character of Dupree Road, and that the owner of the site wanted to

maintain the highest quality of design as possible which includes using traditional brick features to match the local character

Councillor Pat Greenwell, Labour Councillor for the Peninsula ward, questioned the officer on the impact of fumes from the takeaway on future residents of the site, saying

Can I just ask you, have you know sort of I'm thinking about the occupants of the new build. Are they going to be affected by any fumes from the existing premises, the takeaway and

In response, the officer explained that this kind of mixed use development was common, and said he didn't think that there would be any impact on future residents.

Councillor Greenwell also raised concerns about a cobbled area in front of the site, saying

I noticed that some of the cobbled some of the cobbled areas around have been patched up with incorrect material and look quite horrible and I'm just wondering if we spoke to highways notified them that this is going to be reinstated they might be able to salvage some of the cobbles so that we're not making horrible patch-up jobs everywhere

The officer confirmed that the council would reinstate the pavement, and said he would speak to the highways department.

The committee voted to approve the application.

50 Sidcup Road

This application was for a change of use from a single dwelling to a seven-bedroom House in Multiple Occupation (HMO) at 50 Sidcup Road. The application also sought permission for the construction of a rear extension, and the conversion of the loft, which involved a hip-to-gable roof extension and the construction of a dormer window.

The committee heard that two objections had been received to the proposal. They also heard that Councillor Taggart Ryan, Labour Councillor for the Middle Park and Sutcliffe ward, had requested the application be called in due to concerns about parking.

In response to questions from Councillor Calum O’Bryne Mulligan, Labour Councillor for the Peninsula ward, the officer confirmed that the scale and mass of the extensions would be similar to other properties in the street, and that the single-storey rear extension would not extend beyond the line of an existing single-storey extension.

Councillor Asli Mohammed, Labour Councillor for the Woolwich Riverside ward, questioned the officer about the kitchen facilities, saying

Basically going to the kitchen again, seven people in a kitchen that size and going back to do we know how much of this space is going to be actually living room space and there's - we don't, I wondered if you had you any more than us.

The officer explained that because the kitchen and living room would be one space, it would be assessed against the standards for kitchens that do not have a separate living room. This means that the bedrooms have to be larger to compensate for the lack of separate living space.

Councillor Mohammed also raised concerns about the lack of parking at the site, saying

going back to parking so am I right in thinking that you're going to sort of condition that there is just going there will just be two parking spaces at the front because as you said if you've got all the various refuse bins as well that there's not going to be room for three parking spaces is there and because this is a red road you know there's no way anybody can stop at the front

The officer responded by explaining that the development was acceptable in parking terms because of its good access to public transport. She also confirmed that the council would not be able to place a condition on the number of parking spaces because it was not within a Controlled Parking Zone¹.

Councillor Greenwell raised concerns about the number of people that would be living in the HMO, saying

I'm really torn on this one because I feel that seven is a very large number to put in what was what is a semi-detached house concerns about the kitchen and about the cooking facilities and about the bedrooms and the bedroom at the top and the height and everybody having sufficient light.

She also lamented the loss of family housing, saying

I know we desperately need an HMOs but also this is a very nice semi-detached house and we also need families you know sort of to come into these houses with desperate we knows as a planning committee that we're always desperate for three bedroom properties and properties that will sort of house families two or three bedrooms so yeah I'm quite torn at the moment.

Councillor Sam Littlewood, Labour Councillor for the Greenwich West ward, responded by arguing in favour of HMOs, saying

HMOs get a lot of opposition so when I hear the opposition I feel compelled to make this argument once again so when I was a single man fresh out of education on a moderate starting salary in a city where I didn't know all that many people HMOs were a lifeline I lived in an HMO for something like four or five six years it gave me the housing that I needed so where HMOs meet those required standards they should be approved

Councillor Mohammed supported Councillor Littlewood’s statement, saying

I do support the HMOs providing it meets the standards

The applicant, Mrs Tanya Barnes, then addressed the committee. She said that she prefers open plan kitchen living areas, saying

To be honest with you, Courtney covered it with regards to the parking side so no I think we've covered it all so thank you Basically going to the kitchen again, seven people in a kitchen that size and going back to do we know how much of this space is going to be actually living room space and there's - we don't, I wondered if you had you any more than us. I would prefer it to be as the open plan because I know if you know the guys are cooking the food then they've got the seating area as well separate

She said she understood the concerns about ventilation, and gave assurances about the quality of her properties, saying

it's still my property and I'll you know I want it to be well looked after in certain caliber of clients you know so it would need to meet all the standards so yeah it would need to be ventilated of course

The committee voted to approve the application.

126 Alwold Crescent

This application sought retrospective permission for the retention of a rear outbuilding/garden room at 126 Alwold Crescent. The committee heard that one objection had been received, and that Councillor Taggart Ryan had requested the application be called in.

The officer explained that a previous application for the same development had been refused because the plans submitted were inaccurate.

Councillor Greenwell asked the officer to clarify some details of the layout of the proposed loft conversion, saying

Neil, sorry Courtney, can we go back to the roof plan please? Have we got any side elevations here because I'm trying to, what I'm looking at, I'm looking at bedroom six and the limited head height of 2.1 metres.

The officer confirmed that the plans were accurate, and that the development complied with the council’s standards for loft conversions.

The committee voted to approve the application.

Eltham Crematorium Joint Committee - 02 October 2024

The Eltham Crematorium Joint Committee was scheduled to receive updates from the Bereavement Services Manager and Programme Manager, and to note the projected financial position of the Crematorium at its meeting on 02 October 2024.

The Eltham Crematorium Joint Committee is responsible for the management of Eltham Crematorium, which is jointly owned by the Royal Boroughs of Greenwich and Bexley and the London Borough of Bromley. It is made up of three councillors from each borough. The committee meets four times a year and is responsible for setting the budget for the crematorium, approving major works, and monitoring the performance of the crematorium.

Bereavement Services Managers Report ¹

The committee was scheduled to receive an update on the operation of Eltham Crematorium from the Bereavement Services Manager.

The report states that the committee was scheduled to note that:

• Due to the cancellation of the July meeting, this report covers two periods: April 2023 to March 2024, and April 2024 to August 2024.
• Eltham Crematorium submitted entries for a Green Flag award, a London in Bloom Award and an ICCM award.
• Eltham Crematorium needed to purchase a new Book of Remembrance Digital Display cabinet for £6650 + VAT because the screen on the old cabinet, which was installed in 2004, broke. > The new cabinets, known as a “VRS Podium” is a complete redesign consisting of a solid Oak base, with a Microsoft SFF I5 PC.

The Committee was also scheduled to note the following information for the two periods covered by the report:

• the number of cremations
• memorial sales
• progress on the refurbishment of the memorial niches
• an update on the cremators, which were serviced and maintained in May 2024.
• that Eltham Crematorium had submitted data to the Competition Markets Authority
• an update about the Crematorium grounds and chapels

Report of Programme Manager, Capital Projects & Property Maintenance ²

The committee was scheduled to receive a report on capital projects and property maintenance from the Programme Manager.

The report states that the Committee was scheduled to note the 2023/4 planned maintenance programme update. The Committee was also scheduled to note, comment on and agree to the proposed design for the North Chapel refurbishment, which included replacing flooring throughout the chapel with a light coloured porcelain or ceramic tile.

The same tiles are proposed for all areas in two different colours. The darker shade tiles are proposed to mark the depth of the existing concrete pillars.

The report states that the Committee was scheduled to note that drainage engineers had been appointed to provide advice on flooding affecting the rose beds in the remembrance garden and pond areas. It was also scheduled to be noted by The Committee that following agreement of the works to the chapel and specialist drainage advice on the rose garden area, a three-year works programme would be tendered.

Finance Manager’s Treasurer Report ³

The Committee was scheduled to note the projected financial position of Eltham Crematorium at Period 5 2024/25. The report shows a projected overspend position of £65,595 for the year.

The Committee was also scheduled to note that:

• The Repairs & Renewals Reserve was projected to be £530,000 at the end of the 2024/25 financial year.
• The Donations Reserve, which is used for improvements to facilities for mourners, was projected to be £14,500 at the end of the 2024/25 financial year.
• The distribution budget, which is the amount of money paid to each of the three councils in the joint committee, was £490,000.

Transport and Place Scrutiny Panel - 03 October 2024

The Transport and Place Scrutiny Panel met on Thursday 03 October 2024 to discuss flood risk and water management in Greenwich, receive an update on the Local Plan, planning enforcement and planning performance, and to note the work items that are scheduled to be presented to the meeting of the Panel taking place on 20 November 2024.

The Transport and Place Scrutiny Panel is responsible for scrutinising the work of the council's Transport and Place department. The panel has 10 members and is chaired by Councillor Denise Scott-McDonald, Labour Councillor for the Charlton Hornfair ward. It meets every six weeks, and its meetings are open to the public. The panel has a wide range of powers, including:

• Summoning witnesses.
• Requesting information from the council.
• Making recommendations to the council's cabinet.

Flood Risk and Water Management Update

The panel received an update on flood risk and water management in Greenwich.

The report prepared for the meeting explained that With regards to flood risk, Greenwich faces some unique challenges in comparison to other London Boroughs, including the fact that [s]ignificant parts of the borough are classed as critical drainage areas, meaning that properties in these areas are at higher risk of flooding in the event of heavy rain downpours.

The report explained that Royal Borough of Greenwich has responsibilities for flood risk as a Lead Local Flood Authority, Local Planning Authority, Highways Authority and a Category One responder. The report identified a number of different organisations as sharing responsibility for managing flood risk in the borough, including the Environment Agency, Thames Water and Transport for London.

The report listed a number of different flood alleviation schemes and other initiatives that the council is involved in. These include:

• Flood risk investigations at Woodbrook Road, Kingsground, Plumstead High Street, Nathan Way and White Hart Road.
• Updating the Local Flood Risk Management Strategy (LFRMS).
• The Thames Regional Flood and Costal Committee.
• The South East London Flood Risk Management (SELFRM) Group.
• The Thamesmead and Marsh Dykes Partnership.
• The Ravensbourne Catchment Partnership.
• The Association of Directors of Environment, Economy, Planning and Transport (ADEPT) Flood and Water Management Group and London Drainage Engineers Group (LoDEG).
• The Level 2 Strategic Flood Risk Assessment (SFRA) 2019.
• A flood alleviation scheme in Clothworkers Wood designed to utilise the wood as a flood storage area for the Wickham Valley Watercourse.
• Remedial works to streams at the rear of Woodbrook Road.
• The purchase of an asset management app called Karrbontech.
• The development of a SuDS⁴ opportunity map to identify strategic locations where SuDS and flood alleviation schemes could be constructed.

The report explained that a number of challenges and barriers are impacting on the council's work in this area. These include:

• Climate change and aging infrastructure.
• A lack of resources: Prior to 2020, the flood service was managed by one member of staff and whilst we were delivering projects, we were not robust in responding to planning applications. The flood service was subsequently re-established, allowing the flood service to establish a pipeline of projects to deliver on top of our obligation to respond to planning applications.

The report explained that in the future As part of the departmental re-organisation which is currently being implemented, we expect to bring the service up to a resourcing level consistent with that of other local boroughs.

Update on Local Plan, Planning Enforcement and Planning Performance

The panel received an update on the process of developing the new Local Plan, planning enforcement, and planning performance.

Local Plan

The report explained that officers are currently in the evidence gathering and plan preparation phase of developing the new Local Plan, and listed the studies that are currently being undertaken.

The report explained that the timetable for producing the new Local Plan set out in the Local Development Scheme is now out of date Due to a combination of staffing issues, other commitments and various changes to national planning policy and the planning system, including recently proposed changes under consultation at the time of writing, the timetable in the existing LDS is now out-of-date.

Planning Enforcement

The report explained that the planning enforcement team is a small team with responsibility for the whole borough. The report stated that the team has been challenged with capacity issues over the past year, with two officers leaving.

Planning Performance

The report explained that the council receives between 4,000 and 4,500 planning applications each year.

The report stated that the council's performance on major applications is good, with 100% of applications determined within the required timeframe or with a planning performance agreement.

The report explained that a backlog of planning applications built up in recent years, and set out the number of applications that are currently overdue. The report noted that [t]he current backlog levels are still considered to be at unacceptable levels and further work needs to be done to reduce these further, especially in the major team.

The report listed a number of challenges that have impacted on performance. These include:

• staff shortages
• no head of development management in the current structure
• business support shortages
• service failures (errors at validation and consultation)
• lack of communication with agents
• consultation delays
• poor quality submission of applications
• delayed consultee responses.

The report explained that the service has reviewed these challenges and introduced a number of improvements. These include:

• responsive recruitment
• re-organisation including the introduction of a Head of DM
• strengthening internal specialist input
• influencing speedy external consultee responses
• committee changes introduced to speed up non majors application being presented to committee
• work with agents to improve quality of submissions and prompt decision making.

Commissioning of Future Reports

The Panel also noted the work items that are scheduled to be presented to the meeting of the Transport and Place Scrutiny Panel taking place on 20 November 2024. These include:

• An update on the transport work programme over 2024-2025.
• An update on strategic transport projects being delivered within the borough by third parties.
• An update from the Cabinet Member for Planning, Estate Regeneration and Development.

Licensing Sub-Committee A - 03 October 2024

The Licensing Sub-Committee A was scheduled to meet to consider whether to grant a new premises licence to Asda Stores Limited for their new Asda Express store at 15-17 Blackheath Village. The meeting was also scheduled to note the Councillors' Register of Interests, and confirm the minutes of the previous meeting.

Grant of a Premises Licence for Asda Express, 15-17 Blackheath Village, London, SE3 9LH

The meeting was scheduled to consider whether to grant a new premises licence to Asda Stores Limited for their new Asda Express store at 15-17 Blackheath Village.

The application was made on 13 August 2024 and sought permission for the supply of alcohol for consumption off the premises from 06:00 to 00:00 every day and to provide late night refreshment indoors and outdoors from 23:00 to 00:00 every day.

Following discussions with the Metropolitan Police, the applicant revised their application to:

• Supply of Alcohol (for consumption off the premises) from 07:00 to 23:00 every day
• Late Night Refreshment - none.

73 representations were received objecting to the application. 72 of these were from local residents and 1 from The Blackheath Society. The representations largely focus on concerns about the potential for public nuisance and crime and disorder, such as noise and disturbance from patrons, delivery vehicles and refuse collections late at night, increased litter, nuisance parking and anti-social behaviour. Concerns were also raised about public safety, particularly increased foot traffic competing with vehicles on the road, as well as poor parking practices anticipated from delivery vehicles.

Five residents wrote in support of the application, expressing that Asda is a reputable operator who will promote the licensing objectives.

The Metropolitan Police confirmed they had agreed the following conditions with the applicant:

• A CCTV system shall be installed and maintained on the premises. Cameras shall cover the full internal areas accessible to the public and the external areas immediately in front of the store. [...] At least one camera shall show a close-up view of the entrance to the premises and capture a clear, full length view of any person entering the premises.
• "An incident log shall be kept at the premises, and made available on request to the police or an authorised officer. The log shall record the following:
  • (a) All crimes occurring / reported at the venue;
  • (b)Any complaints received;
  • (c) Any incidents of disorder;
  • (d)Any faults with the CCTV system;
  • (e)Any visit by a relevant authority or emergency service;
  • (f) Any refusal for the sale of alcohol;"
• All spirits shall be displayed behind the counter.
• No miniature bottles of spirits of 20cl or below shall be sold from the premises; with the exception of any pre-packaged gift packs that may contain a spirit miniature.
• There shall be no sale of beer, lager, or cider with an ABV above 6.5% sold at the premises; with the exception of artisan or craft beers, lagers, and ciders.
• The premises shall have a till prompt system for alcoholic products.
• The Challenge 25/Think 25 or contemporary equivalent proof of age scheme shall be operated at the premises. [...] Acceptable forms of ID include a photo driving licence, passport, home office approved identity card or other forms of “proof of age” cards bearing the holographic ‘PASS’ mark, military ID or any other form of ID agreed with the Police.
• All staff shall be trained in the law about the sale of alcohol. Such training will include in particular, refusing the sale of alcohol to persons who are already intoxicated, to those that are underage, and proxy sales. [...] Such training (including any refresher training) will be logged and provided not less than every twelve months.
• The licence holder shall at all times maintain adequate levels of staff and security. Such staff and security levels will be disclosed, on request, to the Licensing Authority and the Police. The need for door supervisors / security staff will be assessed by way of internal risk assessments and cognisance will be taken of any police advice.

Declarations of Interests

The Sub-Committee was scheduled to note the Councillors’ Register of Interests, which is a list of each Councillor's memberships of outside bodies.

The Sub-Committee was also asked to request that Councillors orally declare any personal or financial interests they may have in specific items listed on the agenda as they relate to matters under discussion.

The agenda reminds Councillors that:

"A Member has a personal interest where any business is likely to affect:

• (a) them, or
• (b) a relevant person or a relevant body (where the Member is aware that they have the interest);

more than a majority of those in the ward you represent."

and that:

A Member has a financial interest where any business relates to or is likely to affect an interest set out in paragraph 18 of the Code of Conduct, and which is the Member’s interest or the interest of a person described in paragraph 2.2(a) above.

Minutes

The Sub-Committee was asked to confirm the minutes of its previous meeting, which took place on 23 November 2023, as an accurate record.

This week in Greenwich:

• The Licensing Review Sub-Committee met on Wednesday 25 September 2024 to discuss a Trading Standards application for the review of a premises licence for Greenwich Convenience Store, 100 Woolwich Road, SE10 0LE after it sold vapes to children.
• The Schools Forum met on Wednesday 25 September 2024 to discuss the High Needs Block overspend and to revise charges for academy conversions.
• The Local Planning Committee met on Tuesday 24 September 2024 to discuss the conversion of an outbuilding at 118 Woodhill Road in Woolwich, the construction of an extension to an HMO at 64 Holburne Road in Kidbrooke and the construction of an extension at The Vista Building on Calderwood Street in Woolwich.

Local Planning Committee - 24 September 2024

The Local Planning Committee considered three planning applications on Tuesday 24 September 2024. The committee approved three applications: the conversion of an outbuilding at 118 Woodhill Road in Woolwich; the construction of an extension and change of use to an HMO at 64 Holburne Road in Kidbrooke; and the construction of an extension at The Vista Building on Calderwood Street in Woolwich. The committee also approved a retrospective application for a single storey rear extension at 34 Fairthorn Road, Charlton, but only after adding a condition requiring the applicant to provide samples of the brick that will be used to ensure that it matches the existing yellow stock brick¹ of the house.

118 Woodhill Road, Woolwich

The committee considered an application for the conversion and extension of an existing outbuilding to create a new dwelling house. As was the case in a previous email regarding a boundary dispute in West Greenwich, this application concerned the ownership of land at the rear of a property. In that case, a resident of Vanbrugh Hill was seeking to prevent her neighbour from building a fence in what she believed to be her garden. This time the situation was reversed: it was the applicant who was seeking to develop land that other residents believed belonged to them.

The applicant had previously sought permission for a two-bedroom dwelling on the site, however pre-application advice from the council stated that the site would only be suitable for a single-bedroom dwelling. The application was deferred at the previous meeting of the Woolwich and Thamesmead Area Planning Committee to allow for a site visit to be carried out and for further investigation into the ownership of the site after objections were made that the applicant was not the sole owner of the land.

Several residents of the building spoke against the proposal, highlighting the lack of engagement by the applicant with other residents, and expressing a lack of trust in him. They argued that granting the application would be effectively allowing the applicant to build on land that he does not own. Officers advised the committee that matters of land ownership were civil matters that were not material planning considerations in the determination of the application.

“land ownership and disputes over boundaries are civil issues. Unfortunately we can see that”

Officers reassured the residents that the applicant would not be able to build the dwelling without coming to an agreement with the other freeholders of the site.

the build can't start without an agreement between the owners

The committee ultimately voted to approve the application with the proviso that the applicant must come to an agreement with the residents in order to build the extension.

the item's approved, subject to agreement with the residents moving forward

64 Holburne Road, Kidbrooke

The committee considered an application for the construction of a single storey rear extension and change of use from a dwelling house (Use Class C3²) to a 6-person House in Multiple Occupation (Use Class C4³).

This is a good opportunity to remind readers that Houses in Multiple Occupation (HMOs) are subject to additional regulations compared to other types of residential accommodation. For example, HMOs that are occupied by five or more people, who form two or more households, and share amenities such as a kitchen or bathroom, require a mandatory licence from the council. The council has a team dedicated to regulating HMOs, ensuring that they meet the minimum standards set out in the Housing Act 2004 and other relevant legislation.

A local resident, Kim Brazil, spoke against the proposal, raising concerns about parking stress on the street and around the safety of older residents if an HMO were to be approved.

Officers advised that the street was not in a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ),⁴ and so the parking concerns were not a material planning consideration.

Councillor O'Bryne Mulligan highlighted that the HMO would likely attract young professionals such as teachers who work at a nearby school.

HMOs, en-suite HMOs, are not cheap [...] this may be an intermediate product, but having en-suites and the sort of facilities that are going to be incorporated into this development will mean that [...] you will be getting professional people in there just by the nature of the rent

The committee voted to approve the application.

The Vista Building, Calderwood Street, Woolwich

The committee considered an application for the construction of a nine-storey extension to an existing eleven-storey mixed-use building to create 7 new flats and a ground floor retail unit.

The applicant's agent, Bob Macquillan, was present at the meeting. Officers noted that the application was materially the same as a previous application for a similar extension, which was refused by the Woolwich and Thamesmead Area Planning Committee but subsequently approved on appeal.

The committee discussed the impact of the development on the daylight in the existing communal parts of the building. Mr Macquillan agreed to consider installing additional lighting.

it will be in everyone's interest to have that access way lit appropriately. So I'm quite happy to take that on board on behalf of the applicants

The committee voted to approve the application.

Licensing Review Sub-Committee - 25 September 2024

The Licensing Review Sub-Committee of the Royal Borough of Greenwich met on 25 September 2024. There was one item scheduled for discussion on the agenda for this meeting. This was an application by Royal Borough of Greenwich Trading Standards to review the licence of Greenwich Convenience Store, 100 Woolwich Road, London SE10 0LE.

Premises Licence for Greenwich Convenience Store, 100 Woolwich Road, SE10 0LE

Royal Borough of Greenwich Trading Standards applied for the review of the premises licence for Greenwich Convenience Store under sections 53A and 53C of the Licensing Act 2003. The Licensing Act 2003 is the legislation that governs the sale and supply of alcohol in England and Wales.

The grounds for review given were the sale of a nicotine-based vaping product to a person under the age of 18 on 9 February 2024. The application states that

This is a serious matter, which has resulted in a young person being able to purchase a product that is illegal for them to buy and possess, and which presents serious health risks to young persons

The application sought to modify the existing licence by adding conditions requiring the licence holder to:

1. Implement a 'Challenge 25' proof of age scheme.
2. Ensure staff training is up to date and logged every 3 months.
3. Keep a refusals log and for the DPS⁵ to inspect it monthly.
4. Display 'Challenge 25', 'It's a Crime' and safeguarding posters.
5. Label products sold for consumption off the premises with the name of the shop, or the last four digits of the licence number.
6. Install and maintain a CCTV system covering all entry and exit points to the shop and the street outside.
7. Ensure that a staff member who can operate the CCTV system is on the premises at all times.

The report to the committee notes that

The Royal Borough recognises that the promotion of the licensing objectives relies heavily on a partnership between premises licence and club premises certificate holders, authorised persons, other persons and Responsible Authorities in pursuit of common aims. The Royal Borough will endeavour to give premises licence and club premises certificate holders early warning of their concerns about problems identified at the premises and the need for improvement.

The report goes on to say that in this case

There were no additional representations received to this application either from members of the public or any of the Responsible Authorities.

This was the only item scheduled to be discussed at the meeting.

Schools Forum - 25 September 2024

This meeting of the Schools Forum was about the funding of schools in Royal Borough of Greenwich in the 2024-25 academic year. The Schools Forum also received an update on the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG)⁶ for the 2025-26 academic year, and reviewed charges levied on schools converting to academies.

The Schools Forum is a statutory body that advises the council on the funding of schools. The forum is made up of representatives from schools, governors, the council and other stakeholders, such as the Diocese of Southwark. The forum’s role is to advise the council on the allocation of the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG). The DSG is the main source of funding for schools. It is a ring-fenced grant that the council receives from the government.

The Schools Forum also has a role in scrutinising the council’s spending on schools. The forum can make recommendations to the council on how to improve the way that schools are funded.

2024-25 DSG – High Needs Block Update

The Schools Forum received an update on the High Needs Block (HNB) of the Dedicated Schools Grant. The HNB funds provision for pupils with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND), from ages 0 to 25, and alternative provision for pupils who, because of exclusion, illness, or other reasons, cannot receive their education in mainstream schools.

The forum was told that there was a projected overspend of £897k in the HNB, primarily due to the cost of independent school placements for pupils with SEND.

The long-term strategy to help mitigate the high demand within the independent school placements, is to introduce different SEN initiatives. These include an increase in the amounts for the High Needs Top Up bands and increased SEN places within Designated Special Provisions, (DSPs).

2024-25 Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) Update & NNDR Accounting

The Schools Forum received an update on the overall Dedicated Schools Grant, which was projected to be in deficit by £900k. This was primarily due to the projected £897k overspend in the High Needs Block. The report pack contains a table that summarises the funding allocations and projected spend across all four blocks of the Dedicated Schools Grant, and shows a projected overspend of £900k.

This is another good opportunity to remind readers that schools are funded through a combination of government grants and locally raised funds. Government grants include the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG), which is allocated by local authorities, and the Pupil Premium, which is paid directly to schools. Locally raised funds include contributions from parents and fundraising.

The forum was also provided with an update on the arrangements for the payment of non-domestic rates (NNDR)⁷ for schools and academies.

Review and Revision of the Academy Conversion Services and Charges

The Schools Forum was asked to consider increasing charges levied by the council on schools converting to academies. This is because the Council has a statutory duty to facilitate the conversion of schools to academies, but this requires significant officer time.

It's a good opportunity to remind readers that academies are publicly funded schools that are independent of local authority control. They are run by academy trusts, which are charitable bodies. Academies receive their funding directly from the government, rather than through the local authority. Academies are accountable to the Secretary of State for Education.

The report pack includes examples of recent conversions, and states that:

Admittedly, the land and lease issues at Kidbrooke Park were not typical of an academy conversion process. However, the legal fees alone for Boxgrove and Kidbrooke Park were in excess of £130k.

Because of the cost of facilitating the conversions, the Forum was asked to approve:

• An increase in the amount schools are charged from a fixed fee of £7k to a sliding scale between £10k and £25k per school.
• A change so that schools issued with an Academy Order by the Secretary of State for Education on the basis of being judged inadequate by Ofsted are no longer exempted from the charge.

2025-26 Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) Update and National Funding Formula Review

The Schools Forum received a short update on the Dedicated Schools Grant for the 2025-26 academic year. However, at the time this report was written no indicative allocations had been released by the DfE.

This article describes only what was scheduled to be discussed in the reports pack provided for the meeting. It does not describe what was actually discussed, or what decisions were made.

This week in Greenwich:

• The Pension Fund Investment & Administration Panel met on Monday 16 September 2024 to discuss a proposed Net Zero Roadmap, a Knowledge and Understanding Policy and Framework, and the performance of the Pension Fund's investment managers.
• The Planning Board met on Tuesday 17 September 2024 and approved an application for a 33 storey tower on Enderby Place, Greenwich, and a mixed use development adjacent to Studio 338 on Boord Street.
• The Licensing Sub-Committee C was scheduled to meet on Tuesday 17 September 2024 to discuss applications for a new licence for Charlton Athletic Football Club’s planned ‘Fan Zone’ and a variation to the existing licence for AFC Lewisham.
• The General Purposes Committee meeting scheduled for Wednesday 18 September 2024 has been postponed.
• The Cabinet met on Wednesday 18 September 2024 and agreed to the continued development of the Marion Road and Grove site with a mixed tenure scheme, agreed to the Scheme and Estimate for the development of a new all-through SEND School for secondary and post 16 students, agreed to adopt the Statement of Community Involvement and Developers’ Engagement Charter, agreed to enter into a Lease to enable the long term occupation of the flats and shared house at Royal Hill, noted the Annual Safeguarding Adults Board Report and noted the Council’s revenue position as at the end of Quarter 1 2024/25.
• The Health and Adult Social Care Scrutiny Panel met on Thursday 19 September 2024 and considered vaccination rates in the borough, and preparations for the forthcoming Care Quality Commission (CQC) inspection of adult social care in Greenwich.

Pension Fund Investment & Administration Panel - 16 September 2024

This meeting of the Royal Borough of Greenwich's Pension Fund Investment & Administration Panel included reports on the performance of the Pension Fund, the adoption of new policies, and a roadmap on how the Fund plans to move to net zero. The panel makes recommendations to the Pension Board, which has responsibility for the overall management of the Fund. It is responsible for advising the Board on a wide range of issues, including investment strategy, administration, and governance.

Net Zero Roadmap Update

A report entitled [Net Zero Road Map Update Report 2024](https://greenwich.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s8183/7.0+Net+Zero+Road+Map+Update+Report+2024.pdf) presented an updated Net Zero Roadmap for approval. The report stated that it was to:

present an updated Net Zero Roadmap – a framework setting out the practical steps to continue the Fund’s transition to net zero.

The Net Zero Roadmap itself says that

Evolving the Fund’s investment strategy to take account of the opportunities and risks presented by climate change should be done within the context of a broader plan, ensuring that all issues are properly addressed.

It went on to summarise the progress made since the last roadmap, including:

• Establishing a dedicated Responsible Investment (RI) Policy.
• The introduction of a manager monitoring programme where managers are invited to each Board meeting to present on ESG-related themes, including net zero, and stewardship activities.
• A commitment of £42.5m to the London Collective Investment Vehicle (LCIV)'s Renewable Infrastructure Fund. The LCIV is an organisation that pools the assets of the 32 London Boroughs and the City of London to create funds that they can invest in.
• Investment of 14% of the Fund’s assets (current value c£280m) in a low carbon global equity mandate with Legal & General Investment Management (LGIM), which achieved a c50% reduction in carbon emissions relative to the Fund originally held. LGIM is a global asset management company.

The Roadmap then presented an updated list of actions the Fund could take in pursuit of net zero, split into the workstreams of Education, Understanding the baseline, Evaluating alignment and setting targets, Planning and implementation actions, and Monitoring and reporting progress, covering the period up to the end of 2025.

Knowledge and Understanding Policy and Framework

A report entitled [Knowledge Understanding Policy and Framework Report](https://greenwich.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s8181/Knowledge+Understanding+Policy+and+Framework+Report.pdf) requested the Panel to approve an updated Knowledge and Understanding Policy and Framework. This document details the training that will be provided to members of the Pension Board, which has responsibility for reviewing decisions made by the Panel and requesting further information from Fund officers, and the Panel itself. The report stated that:

The Pension Board is required to establish and maintain a policy and framework to address the knowledge and understanding requirements that apply to its members. The Fund has published this framework and extended it to cover arrangements for the knowledge and understanding of Panel members. The framework was updated in 2021 and a revised policy was agreed by Board and Panel in June/July 2023.

It goes on to say that

The Code is intended for all individuals responsible for the management of the LGPS or who have a decision-making, scrutiny or oversight role and is designed for Funds to deliver, assess and record effective training and development.

The Policy itself stated that its objective was:

to ensure that Board members meet the legal requirements placed upon them in respect of knowledge and understanding of the local government pension scheme and maintain their training and development, which will be assessed and recorded annually

It also says that

Each year, when possible, the Fund will hold an annual ‘away day’ for officers, Board members and Panel members. This is an opportunity to cover training on a vast number of topics

Annual Report of the Pension Board 2023/24

A report requested the Panel to note the annual report of the Pension Board. The [Pension Board Annual Report 2023-24](https://greenwich.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s8180/Pension+Board+Annual+Report+2023-24.pdf) covered the Board's activity during the 2023/24 financial year, including:

• It noted that Councillor Nick Williams was the Chair of the Pension Board during this period. Councillor Nick Williams is a Labour Councillor for the Greenwich West ward.
• It summarised the items considered by the Board during the year, including:
  • Review of scheme administration arrangements.
  • Review of quarterly fund performance.
  • Review of Fund strategies, statements and reports.
  • Review of the Knowledge and Skills Framework.
  • Review of the Risk Register.
• It noted the training received by Board members during the year, including training from Hymans Robertson, the Fund's investment advisors. Hymans Robertson is a firm of actuaries and consultants that advises pension schemes on their investments.
• It provided a summary of the Pension Fund Away Day, which included training on topics such as the current economic outlook, an update on the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS), and an update on the Fund's pooling arrangements.
• It noted that the Board will continue to receive presentations from the Funds Investment Managers on their ESG related activities.
• It presented the Board's Business Plans for 2023/24 and 2024/25.

Fund Manager Performance to 30 June 2024

The Panel was requested to note a report on the performance of the Pension Fund’s investment managers for the period ending 30 June 2024. The [Fund Manager Performance to 30 June 2024](https://greenwich.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s8197/Fund+Manager+Performance+to+30+June+2024.pdf) report summarised the Fund's assets and allocation, and provided information about the performance of the Fund's investment managers, including:

• BlackRock
• LGIM
• Fidelity International
• CBRE

LCIV Update on Operations and Performance

A presentation from the LCIV on its operations and performance was scheduled to be received by the Panel.

Pension Fund Carbon Footprint Data 31 March 2024

A report entitled [Carbon Footprint Report as at 31 March 2024](https://greenwich.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s8193/Carbon+Footprint+Report+as+at+31+March+2024.pdf) presented the Royal Greenwich Pension Fund's carbon footprint data as at 31 March 2024 for noting by the Panel. The report said:

Continued monitoring of carbon footprint and climate analytics assists the Fund in monitoring progress against its Net Zero Roadmap which was established in 2022

The report said that the Fund had reduced its carbon emissions from 835.1 tCO2e/mGBP¹ in 2022 to 754.2 tCO2e/mGBP in 2024.

tCO2e/mGBP stands for tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent per million Great British Pounds. This is a measure of the carbon intensity of an investment portfolio.

The report also included a presentation from the LCIV on [Climate Risk Management Training](https://greenwich.moderngov.co.uk/documents/s8195/Appendix+B+-+Climate+Risk+Management+Training.pdf).

This article describes only what was scheduled to be discussed in the reports pack provided for the meeting. It does not describe what was actually discussed, or what decisions were made.

Planning Board - 17 September 2024

The Planning Board approved an application for a 33 storey tower on Enderby Place, Greenwich and a mixed use development adjacent to Studio 338 on Boord Street. An application for a care home at Victoria House on Shooter’s Hill Road was also approved. An application relating to a site on Rathmore Road, Charlton was deferred.

The Planning Board is responsible for making decisions on planning applications in the Borough. The Board is made up of elected Councillors, and its decisions are based on the Council’s Local Plan², national planning policy and other material considerations. The Local Plan is a document that sets out the council’s planning policies for the borough.

The Board meets every month to consider planning applications, and its meetings are open to the public. You can find out more about the Planning Board on the Council’s website.

Enderby Place, Telcon Way, Greenwich

The Planning Board approved a revised scheme for a 33 storey tower on a site off Telcon Way. The application is for full planning permission for the erection of buildings ranging from 4 to 33 storeys in height, providing 564 residential apartments (Class C3³), light industrial space (Class E(g)(iii)⁴) and community/café use (Sui Generis⁵), and associated highways, landscaping and public realm works. This is the second time the scheme has been before the board. The scheme was previously deferred for the applicant to consider reducing the height of the tallest tower. The most significant change to the scheme was a reduction of the height of the tallest building by two storeys.

The site is located in the Greenwich Peninsula West Strategic Development Location and there is an extant planning permission for a mixed use scheme that was granted in 2015, which has since been implemented. This included plans for a cruise liner terminal building that was considered to be a material consideration in the assessment of the current application.

The site is adjacent to a number of recently approved and completed residential developments including Enderby Wharf and Morden Wharf, both of which have or will include buildings up to 36 storeys above ground level.

The applicant advised the Board that they were a long-term investor in communities and do not develop schemes to sell but instead let properties.

Impact on Existing and Emerging Views

The applicant's heritage consultant advised the scheme would be visible from a number of locations including Greenwich Park, the Old Royal Naval College and Ballast Quay. They stated the scheme would form part of the cluster of tall buildings that had been approved across the Peninsula including the schemes at Morden Wharf. The applicant's agent explained the intention of the design was to respond to the difference in heights between Enderby Wharf and Morden Wharf and graduate that height so you get this nice smooth bell curve in various views.

The distance between the site and the General Wolfe statue is 1.5 kilometres. It's a considerable distance and you will have seen in that view from the General Wolfe statue, the site is way off to the right in terms of view. I mean, it's quite peripheral in terms of that view. - Applicant's Agent.

Flood Risk and Mitigation

A local resident who lives in one of the houses adjacent to the development site expressed concern about the condition of the flood defences adjacent to the site. The resident provided details of their concerns including photographic evidence of the failed tidal planting and evidence the rock rolls, which support the flood defences, were shifting. The resident asked the applicant's team to provide assurance that a full site survey would be undertaken.

The applicant’s agent responded that the flood defences were being reviewed by a structural engineer. The applicant also committed to providing a report on the condition of the flood defences, which would be reviewed by the Council.

Impact on Daylight and Sunlight

The applicant's agent presented details of the daylight and sunlight assessment undertaken on the amended scheme, which they advised the Board showed limited change from the original assessment. The agent also advised that the assessment had been undertaken across four different scenarios.

Obviously the worst case scenario is with the proposal built out as well as with the morden wharf scheme. And there is notably an impact on those adjoining residents. Some of them anyway in regards to daylight and sunlight. But obviously as officers we've considered that against the extent consent which was approved at the same time as the MW wharf scheme. - Planning Officer

The agent for the scheme also responded to questions from the Board about the comparison between the daylight and sunlight effects of the scheme versus the scheme with the extant consent. They advised that the revised massing of the buildings, in particular the gap between buildings, would improve daylight levels for those living on the Enderby Wharf site.

A resident of Enderby Wharf, which sits to the south of the site, explained to the Board the impact that the revised scheme would have on their flat.

I referred to the last planning board minutes and the planning officer stated that the separation distance between the developments was 16 metres. I referred to the diagram that was provided in the plans and it is actually 12.9 metres between the closest part of Îsselkort and Telkon Tower. - Resident of Enderby Wharf.

Health Care Provision

A board member asked the planning officer to confirm the level of contribution proposed towards NHS provision and the officer advised this would be £700,000 towards the Queen Elizabeth Hospital. The applicant's agent then highlighted that the proposal would also contribute £4 million towards the Community Infrastructure Levy, which could be used towards healthcare.

A board member expressed their concern that given the amount of development coming forward on the Peninsula, the existing healthcare facilities would not be sufficient to meet the demand. The Planning Officer responded that an assessment of social infrastructure, which included reviewing healthcare facilities, had been reviewed by the NHS who had not requested healthcare provision within the development site.

Traffic Management

In response to questions from the Board, the planning officer advised that the access arrangements for the site had not changed from the original submission. Access would continue to be via Telecom Way, which is a private road.

Board members raised concerns that as there were an increasing number of developments coming forward on the Peninsula and limited road network, traffic would be a growing problem. In response, the applicant's agent advised that the development was car-free and therefore would not result in a significant increase in car journeys. The agent also highlighted the financial contributions towards improving public transport.

In terms of public services and particularly transport, just a reminder that there's £500,000 that would be contributed towards improving bus services in the area. There's also £1.5 million that would be contributed towards improving, well, in terms of delivering a new river bus pier in front of the site. And then there's also funding that's being put forward by the developer to essentially guarantee Thames Clipper that if they don't meet the revenue targets that they had envisaged then that would be covered by the developer, so it gives a lot of confidence to Thames Clipper to deliver that infrastructure. - Applicant's Agent.

Sales and Marketing

Board members asked the planning officer whether the proposal would be marketed to overseas investors. In response, the planning officer advised the Board that it was difficult to control where private properties were sold. However they also noted that all the affordable homes would be allocated to people on the Housing Register.

I think that is a difficult one for us at the moment given our policy context. You know, if we're applying a condition, we have to have a policy basis for doing so. So we can't do that for applications as they're coming forward today. Obviously we are in the process of reviewing our local plan. So whether there's opportunities for including something like that going forward, that may help us with future applications. But as we stand today, that's very difficult for us to achieve. - Planning Officer

Finishing Materials

A Board member raised concerns regarding the finishing materials of the building. The Planning Officer responded that conditions would be placed on the planning permission to secure appropriate materials for the development. The Applicant's team then confirmed that they would be willing to engage in discussions with the local community to discuss the finishing materials of the building.

Thanks. In terms of materiality, we're proposing a lightweight reconstituted stone. You'll see from Tim's presentation, that's used in a selection of different ways. We have one material used throughout the development. Then we provide the variety by giving that slightly different texture. One of the things we feel about high-rise developments is the ones that are less successful are the ones that throw lots of different materials at it. You're much better off taking a limited palette of materials and using that sensitively. - Applicant's Architect

The Board voted to approve the development.

Former Lorry Park adjacent to Studio 338, Boord Street

The Planning Board approved an application for the redevelopment of the site to provide a mixed-use development, including 352 residential units, a 340-bedroom student block, a self storage facility with light industrial workspace and other associated infrastructure. The report pack included a design and access statement, which detailed how the proposal would fit in with its surroundings, including the adjacent Studio 338 nightclub.

Appearance, Character, and Visual Impact

The development was described by the applicant's team as a family of buildings sharing a common character of colours and textures. The Planning Officer, describing the proposed self storage building said, “it is considered an expressive architecture that would contribute positively to the distinct character of the overall scheme."

“The concept is built around the Greenwich Mean Time with time zones of longitude and using these to simulate floor levels and openings on the building with lighting at night, etc" - Applicant's Agent

Agent of Change

Both the freeholder and leaseholder of Studio 338 raised objections to the scheme on the basis that it failed to adequately address the Agent of Change Principle. This principle seeks to ensure that where new developments are being built near to existing noise-sensitive businesses, the developer is responsible for ensuring that the new development is designed to mitigate the impact of noise from the existing business. The applicant was criticised for their lack of engagement with Studio 338, having only made one attempt to contact them in 2023.

We've been in consultation with the Department of Culture and Creative Industries at the GLA and they've said Studio 338 is one of just six London clubs in the list of global 100 best clubs. It would be a huge loss if they were to face closure due to noise complaints - Representative for Studio 338.

The freeholder also raised concerns about the wording of condition 24 of the proposed decision notice, which would require the developer to achieve noise rating levels of NR10.⁶ They argued that the wording of the condition was too permissive, as it allowed for the Council and the developer to agree to lower noise levels without public scrutiny. The freeholder recommended that the condition be removed.

The Council's Planning Officer advised the Board that the condition would be amended to reflect the concerns raised.

The Board raised their concern that the proposed mitigation, which included triple glazing and acoustic screening to the north of the building, would not be sufficient to protect the residents from the noise from the nightclub.

When that happens, and it will happen, there will be complaints to your officers regardless of whether we have a deed of easement or whatever and they have a statutory obligation and that will lead to the closure of the premises. So my final point would be that this application in its current guise is entirely against the agent of change and granting it, as it stands, will have a significant risk I would say an inevitability that Studio 338 won't be able to trade any longer. - Studio 338's Noise Consultant.

So in my own view we are for two things here, one to make sure that the extreme pressures that we have in our temporary accommodation where we don't have enough accommodation and also to make sure that that is taken care of where people have access to affordable accommodation and all of that so we are very much up for having developments like this in Greenwich. The second bit which we cannot overrule is the fact that we have businesses that we want to thrive, we have businesses that provide jobs for our residents and of course you pay the business rate and there are so many attendant benefits to all our businesses in the borough. So it would be very helpful if you have accosting because in my own very strong belief and opinion the person who is driving this change should be responsible or supporting or mitigating or meeting you halfway to making sure that the impact of that change is met halfway - Representative for Studio 338.

The Board asked the applicant whether, in light of the agent of change principle, they would be willing to consider alternative designs for the nightclub. The applicant confirmed they were willing to engage with Studio 338 on the issue of noise mitigation.

“Of course we're happy to continue with the dialogue. We've heard where they're coming from. You heard this evening the standard that they wish us to reach. We think we can do that and the conditions secure that we do do that. So I think the question was would you still be willing to engage with the club to come to an amicable agreement which may actually mean that the club has to do some extra work so that the future operations of the club are not going to be impinged on once residents start moving in?" - Applicant's Agent

The freeholder of Studio 338 then confirmed that, should the development be approved, they would engage with the applicant to discuss noise mitigation.

The Black Box Self-Storage Unit

The Board expressed concerns over the appearance of the self storage building and described it as a “black box”, asking whether it would be possible to “soften” its visual impact, possibly through greening.

I also saw what finishing you've got in mind and what process you go through in terms of the finishing materials and colours and things. Secondly, an issue that those of us that have large private estates often face is that it all looks sparkling, fountained and everything, you know, when it's built you're trying to sell or rent properties, lovely. That keeps up. Ten or twenty years down the line you've got a residence management company very keen to reduce their service charges, things leading a lot of money to the renewal, not enough money put by in terms of sinking fund and therefore things get cut back. So what conditions, what guarantees can you give about sustainability of the public realm? - Board Member

The applicant's agent responded that the self-storage building had been designed to meet the requirements of the Council and the Design Review Panel.

The pro self storage box is designed to be a single and standalone element but also complementary in nature. The concept is built around the Greenwich Mean Time with time zones of longitude and using these to simulate floor levels and openings on the building with lighting at night, etc. - Applicant's Agent

The Board asked for reassurances that the building would not be used as a distribution hub, due to concerns over increased traffic levels. The applicant's agent responded that the trip generation for the site was low with only 20 vehicle movements anticipated in the AM peak.

The Planning Officer advised the Board that the materiality of the building could be reviewed by way of condition. Accordingly, the board agreed to add wording to condition 25 of the proposed decision notice requiring the submission of alternative materials and colours for the self storage building prior to commencement.

The Board voted to approve the development.

Victoria House, Shooters Hill Road

The Planning Board approved an application for the partial demolition of Victoria House and its conversion to a 70 bedroom care home.

Heritage Impact

The application site is a locally listed building located within the Woolwich Common Conservation Area. The applicant confirmed they would retain the existing facades and gables of the building, but would demolish and rebuild the roof. The proposal also involves extending the building to the rear.

The original building has influenced the design of the new elements at the rear. The extension's high-quality architecture responds well to the form of the historic building. It incorporates terracotta cornice and brick banding to accentuate the horizontal emphasis of the existing building and add interest to the extension. - Council's Conservation Officer.

The Council's Conservation Officer advised the Board that the proposal would result in the loss of some historic fabric, however they concluded that the proposal would result in less than substantial harm to the heritage asset.

On balance, as set out in section 25 of this report, in view of the loss of the historic fabric proposed, the retention of the main façade, gable ends, and part of the rear façade, the retention of the timber framed windows and the quality of the architecture and materials, of the proposed extensions, officers consider that the development would cause less than substantial harm of the locally listed host building. - Council's Conservation Officer.

Affordable Care Home Bedspaces

The Applicant agreed to provide 10 affordable care home bedspaces at the facility with the details of the affordability to be determined with the Council.

The applicant and the Council’s Adult Services department have yet to agree what an appropriate affordable rate would be for a variety of reasons, including that an appropriate affordable rate would need to be defined by the market conditions at the time of commissioning. - Planning Officer

Tree Impacts and Mitigation

The applicant advised the Board that they would be removing a number of trees from the site in order to accommodate the development and would also be undertaking crown reductions on several lime trees on the western site boundary.

The line of lime trees on the western boundary were originally planted at approx. 3m centres, and the applicant considers they are becoming overcrowded and require some thinning and/or crown reductions, but without jeopardising the remaining trees. - Applicant's Arboricultural Consultant

The Council's Tree Officer advised the board that they had no objection to the development, due to the applicant’s proposed replacement planting and the low quality of the existing trees, with the exception of three trees which are protected by Tree Preservation Order.⁷

“During processing the application, due to a public objection to the scheme, T76 Ash Tree, T74 Sycamore Tree, and T75 were subjected to the Tree Preservation Order. These trees are proposed to be removed." - Council's Tree Officer

The applicant argued that it was necessary to remove the TPO trees due to the poor condition of the trees and potential damage to the building in the future. The applicant also advised that the removal of the trees would create a positive view of the development from Shooters Hill Road, however, this point was challenged by officers. The Applicant has advised that two mature Lime trees will be planted in this location to help to offset the loss of the TPO trees.

“The applicant has advised that Lime trees will be planted at either site of the access gate, which has been accepted by the Tree Officer and is therefore considered a suitable replacement, including in relation to impacts on the Woolwich Common Conservation Area.” - Planning Officer

Overshadowing Impact

The applicant's agent advised the board that the proposal was not expected to negatively impact neighbouring properties or open space in terms of overshadowing. The agent cited the conclusions of the daylight and sunlight assessment as support for this finding, which the board accepted.

Highways Access

TfL raised concerns regarding a potential highways safety issue in relation to large vehicles accessing the site.

“Transport for London (TfL) have raised a highways safety concern in regard to the potential for large vehicles turning left out of the Academy Road exit to cross over the central median, as is shown in the submitted tracking curves in Appendix 7 of the Transportation Assessment.” - Planning Officer

In order to mitigate this risk the applicant agreed to a condition on the planning permission to ensure that the development operates as a one-way system for refuse collection and servicing as well as providing a right turn out only from Academy Road for large vehicles.

The board voted to approve the development.

Licensing Sub-Committee C - 17 September 2024

This meeting was scheduled to discuss applications for a new licence for Charlton Athletic Football Club’s planned ‘Fan Zone’ and a variation to the existing licence for AFC Lewisham.

This is a good opportunity to remind readers that there are three licensing sub-committees, each of which has three members drawn from the council's ten Licensing Councillors. The Licensing Sub-Committee is responsible for considering applications for new and varied Premises Licences, and for reviewing existing licences. The sub-committees must ensure that the four licensing objectives set out in the Licensing Act 2003 are met. These are:

• The prevention of crime and disorder
• Public safety
• The prevention of public nuisance
• The protection of children from harm

The Sub-Committee's decisions must also adhere to the Council's Statement of Licensing Policy, which sets out how the authority will apply the licensing objectives when considering applications.

Charlton Athletic Fan Zone

The sub-committee was scheduled to consider Charlton Athletic Football Company Limited’s application for a new off-licence at their planned ‘Fan Zone’ in the West Car Park of The Valley Football Stadium on Floyd Road in Charlton.

The application requested permission for the sale and supply of alcohol (to be consumed both on and off the premises), the exhibition of films, the provision of indoor sports, the performance of live music, the provision of recorded music, the performance of dance and ‘activities of a similar description’ (both indoors and outdoors) from 9am until 9pm every day.

Although the application requests seemingly wide-ranging proposed hours for licensable activities, this is only to cover the possibility of the days and hours of football matches being changed at short notice to accommodate such things as television coverage and the intention is to use the Licence only for pre-match activities (the later hours being sought in case of the Team needing to play possibly televised games in Europe where the time zones and requests from television broadcasters may be different)

- LSC report - Fan Zone Charlton Athletic Football Club Floyd Road SE7 Grant

The application had received two representations, one from a local Councillor, Councillor Jo van den Broek, and one in the form of a petition signed by seventy-nine local residents. Both representations opposed the application on the grounds of crime and disorder and public nuisance.

The report pack included a schedule of eleven conditions that Charlton Athletic Football Company Limited had offered in the initial operating schedule, fourteen further conditions that they had agreed with the Metropolitan Police after discussion, and five proposed conditions suggested by the council's Licensing team.

AFC Lewisham

The sub-committee was scheduled to discuss an application to vary the existing premises licence for AFC Lewisham at the Gresham Sports Ground on Eltham Road in Eltham.

The applicant was requesting permission to:

• Extend the hours for the sale of alcohol on the premises to 4pm to 11pm Monday to Thursday, 4pm to midnight on Friday, midday to midnight on Saturday, and midday to 11pm on Sunday, and to add the licensable activity of the consumption of alcohol off the premises during these hours.
• Increase the hours for the provision of indoor sporting events and the performance of dance to 4pm to 11pm Monday to Thursday, 4pm to midnight on Friday, midday to midnight on Saturday, and midday to 11pm on Sunday.
• Extend the opening hours of the premises to 9am to 11pm Monday to Thursday, 9am to midnight on Friday and Saturday, and 9am to 11pm on Sunday.

The report pack included a list of complaints about AFC Lewisham, including noise complaints and allegations of antisocial behaviour. It also included the decision notice for a previously refused Temporary Event Notice application from the Designated Premises Supervisor, Mr Phillemon Mashaga, for a late-night event.

Two Responsible Authorities, The Royal Borough of Greenwich Community Protection Team and the Public Health Team had submitted representations. Additionally, two local councillors, Councillor Denise Hyland and Councillor Sandra Bauer, and forty-eight local residents, had also made representations. All representations objected to the variation on the grounds of public nuisance, with one resident, Ms R Macey, also including an objection on the grounds of the protection of children from harm.

Following consultation, six conditions had been proposed by the Royal Borough of Greenwich Community Protection Team, although at the time of writing, these conditions had not yet been formally agreed to by the applicant.

Cabinet - 18 September 2024

The meeting approved the Our Greenwich Annual Plan

This week in Greenwich:

• The Children and Young People Scrutiny Panel was scheduled to receive updates on the performance of Children's Services and on a public consultation on proposed changes to Children's Centres.
• The Inclusive Economy and Culture Scrutiny Panel was scheduled to receive updates from the Cabinet Members for Inclusive Economy, Business, Skills and Greenwich Supports, and for Equality, Culture & Communities.
• The Transport and Place Scrutiny Panel meeting scheduled for Tuesday 10 September 2024 was cancelled.
• The Overview & Scrutiny Call-in Sub-Committee was scheduled to consider a 'Call in' by Councillors John Fahy and Majella Anning of a decision made by the Council's Cabinet at their meeting on the 24th July 2024 about the future of two of the council's trading companies: GS Plus Ltd and GSS Ltd.

Children and Young People Scrutiny Panel - 11 September 2024

This meeting of the Children and Young People Scrutiny Panel was scheduled to receive updates on several important topics, including the performance of Children's Services in the borough, the impact of a new strategy to ensure the council can provide enough suitable accommodation for children in its care, and changes to the Children's Centres service in the borough. The panel was also scheduled to note the findings of an independent review of children with SEND in residential provision.

Children's Services Quarterly Performance Monitoring: Q1 2024-2025

The panel was scheduled to receive a report on the performance of the Children's Services department for the first quarter of the 2024-2025 reporting year (April-June 2024). This report was scheduled to provide information on the performance of the service against several key measures, including:

• the proportion of Education, Health and Care Plans (EHCPs)¹ issued within the statutory timeframe of 20 weeks;
• the number of children on Child In Need (CIN) plans² and Child Protection Plans (CPP)³;
• the number of children in care;
• the number of children receiving support from the Family and Adolescent Support Service (FaASS)⁴.

Update on the impact of the new sufficiency strategy and draft plan for 2024-25

The panel was scheduled to receive a report on the impact of the new sufficiency strategy for children in care, A Place Called Home, which the council published in October 2023. The report was scheduled to set out the key ambitions of the strategy and to provide an overview of the actions that had been taken to achieve them in 2023-24. It was also scheduled to summarise the actions and priorities for 2024-25.

The report described the national context for children's social care, noting that local authorities across the country are facing challenges in finding the right placements for children in care. It stated that the average independent fostering placement costs approximately £1,000 per week, while the average residential placement costs around £5,600 per week. It added that almost all local authorities have at least one high-cost placement costing £10,000 per week or more.

A Place Called Home sets out four ambitions:

• Ambition 1: To prevent entry to care and to support and safeguard children to live with their families, where this is best for them.
• Ambition 2: If a child cannot safely remain with their family, our ambition is for family-based care with trained and experienced foster carers in Greenwich, to enable children to maintain their links with their families, schools and communities. This includes those children with Special Educational Needs and complex disabilities.
• Ambition 3: Where local family-based care is not the right option for a child, our third ambition is to secure a safe and stable placement with the care they need to thrive. This might be via an Independent Fostering Agency (IFA) or a Children’s Home.
• Ambition 4: When the children in our care reach the age of 18 years, our ambition is that they enter adulthood with somewhere to call home, a supportive social network, the skills to keep themselves safe and well, and for them to be in education, employment or training (EET).

Independent review of Children with Special Educational Needs and Disability (SEND) in Residential provision

The panel was scheduled to note an update on the independent review of children with SEND in residential provision. The review, which covered all children with EHCPs in residential placements, was commissioned by the Greenwich Safeguarding Children Partnership (GSCP).

The report pack contained the specification for this review, which had been carried out in two phases.

In the first phase, Royal Borough of Greenwich (RBG) officers completed quality and safety reviews of each child. These included discussions with the young person, family, and key professionals involved in their care.

In the second phase, an independent reviewer analysed these reviews, along with other case records and available publications from the national panel, to identify any emerging themes, and provide recommendations to improve multi-agency safeguarding arrangements.

Children's Centres Consultation

The panel was scheduled to receive an update on a public consultation on proposed changes to Children's Centres. The proposed changes were being made in response to cuts in government funding and increasing demand for early years and childcare.

The proposal, called Children’s Centres Beyond Walls, involved moving some Children's Centre services away from fixed sites and to more flexible locations, such as schools, community centres, and even people's homes. This new network would offer a more flexible and responsive service that could be tailored to the needs of each community.

The report pack contained a breakdown of the services offered at each of the borough's 23 Children's Centres and set out the proposed changes to each centre.

For example, Rachel McMillan Children’s Centre, which is run out of Rachel McMillan Nursery School in Deptford, was scheduled to be repurposed to provide more childcare places to meet increasing demand. Children’s Centre sessions would instead be offered at “satellite sites” within the community.

The consultation period was scheduled to run from 19 August to 7 October 2024.

Inclusive Economy and Culture Scrutiny Panel - 12 September 2024

The meeting was scheduled to receive updates from the Cabinet Members for Inclusive Economy, Business, Skills and Greenwich Supports, and for Equality, Culture & Communities. A report pack was also provided with information about the council's approach to high value businesses and the Inclusive Economy Strategy.

Inclusive Economy Strategy

The report pack contains information about the Inclusive Economy Strategy², which was adopted in 2024. The strategy seeks to ensure that economic growth benefits everyone in the borough, addressing disparities in employment, business growth, and quality of life across different areas.

The report pack describes the council's plans to attract new businesses to the borough, to diversify the economy and to support residents into employment. These include developing a new Local Plan³ and Affordable Workspace Strategy⁴, promoting the London Living Wage⁵ and the Mayor's Good Work Standard, and delivering externally funded employment programmes, amongst other activities.

Attracting and Supporting High Value Businesses

The report pack included a summary of the council's approach to attracting and supporting high-value businesses in the borough. It noted that Greenwich has approximately 10,000 businesses which in recent times has remained static in contrast to growth in London and England. It also notes that growth in the business base, especially high value businesses will create jobs, providing opportunities for employment and progression, and that there is increasing competition for inward investment across the region. The council therefore recognises the need to establish a proactive approach to attracting new private sector investment to the borough.

The report pack lists the largest businesses in the borough by number of employees and by turnover. This analysis found that a high number of the borough's largest employers are in the public sector.

The report pack describes how the council engages with businesses in the borough. These methods include business breakfasts, a business bulletin and a borough-wide business survey.

The council recognises the need to take a more strategic approach to engaging with larger, high-value businesses, relying less on the provision of basic business advice and guidance to more on relationship management, understanding and insight.

The report pack also describes how the council plans to attract high-value businesses to the borough in the future. These plans include:

• Developing an inward investment prospectus.
• Working with London & Partners and other organisations to promote the borough.
• Developing sector action plans for high-growth industries.
• Reviewing existing resources to prioritise support for high-value businesses.

The council also plans to continue the Anchored in Greenwich partnership. This partnership brings together major employers in the borough to support local supply chains, create new business space, and encourage businesses to adopt fair employment practices, such as paying the London Living Wage.

The partnership also includes Further Education and Higher Education institutions. The report pack highlights the importance of skills and the borough's universities in attracting high-value businesses. For example, it notes that since 2014 universities in Greenwich have helped to create 120 spin-offs and start-ups, creating 516 jobs.

Work Programme

The report pack also includes a draft work programme for the Inclusive Economy and Culture Scrutiny Panel for the 2024/25 municipal year. The most significant items are the presentation of a draft anti-poverty strategy and an update on the Culture Strategy at the next meeting, scheduled for 2 October 2024. The report pack also mentions that the Community Wealth Building 2022 Evaluation is scheduled to be presented in November 2024, and that an Inclusive Economy Strategy one-year review is scheduled to be presented in April 2025.

Overview & Scrutiny Call-in Sub-Committee - 10 September 2024

The Overview & Scrutiny Call-in Sub-Committee was scheduled to consider a 'Call in' by Councillors John Fahy and Majella Anning of a decision made by the Council's Cabinet at their meeting on the 24th July 2024. The 'Call in' related to a decision by the Cabinet about the future of two of the council's trading companies: GS Plus Ltd and GSS Ltd.

GS Plus Ltd and GSS Ltd - Review of Direction of Travel

Councillors John Fahy and Majella Anning called in a decision made by the Council's cabinet to continue the operation of two of the council's wholly owned companies: GS Plus Ltd (GSP) and Greenwich Service Solutions Ltd (GSS).

GSP is a Teckal company, meaning it is exempt from some procurement rules, allowing the council to award it contracts without competition. It currently provides the following services to the council, schools in the borough, and private companies:

• Fleet Management
• Passenger Services
• Facilities Management & Building Cleaning Services
• Schools ICT support

GSS is a more traditional trading company and currently provides the following services:

• Providing Agency Staff to GSP and Chartwells
• School Cleaning
• Payroll Services

The call-in requests that the Sub-Committee asks the Cabinet to reconsider their decision and instead to:

enter into a 5-year Strategic Partnering Agreement with GS Plus and GSS with the express aim of bringing GS Plus in-house and to either bring GSS in-house or establish it as a Co-operative, both within that period of time. This agreement to be published and subject to scrutiny.

The call-in is made on the following grounds:

• A two-tier workforce: The Councillors argued that the companies' use of different pay and conditions to the council's own staff was unfair.
• Lack of transparency and accountability: The Councillors argued that the use of companies was not transparent or accountable. The report notes that this concern had also been raised by the council's external auditors.

The report prepared for the Sub-Committee meeting summarises the arguments for and against the continuation of the companies.

Arguments for continuation:

• The companies are now profitable, and closing them down would cost the council up to £2 million.
• The companies provide valuable services to the council and the community.
• Closing the companies would put jobs at risk.

Arguments against continuation:

• The companies operate a two-tier workforce, which is unfair to staff employed on less favourable terms and conditions than those directly employed by the council.
• The use of companies reduces transparency and accountability.

The report recommends that the Sub-Committee notes the Cabinet's decision and takes no further action.

This week in Greenwich:

• The Audit and Risk Management Panel reviewed the council's financial and risk management policies.

Audit and Risk Management Panel - 04 September 2024

The Audit and Risk Management Panel was scheduled to meet to review several of Royal Borough of Greenwich's financial and risk management policies, including the Annual Governance Statement 2023/24, the Strategic Risk Register, and the Internal Audit Charter 2024/25. The panel was also scheduled to note a report on the performance of the Internal Audit and Anti-Fraud team between April and June 2024. The Audit and Risk Management Panel is an independent committee of the council that scrutinises the council’s governance and financial management. It meets six times a year and has the following responsibilities:

• Reviewing the council’s financial statements and the external auditor’s report on those statements.
• Reviewing the council’s risk management framework and the effectiveness of the council’s risk management arrangements.
• Reviewing the council’s internal audit plan and the effectiveness of the council’s internal audit function.

Medium Term Financial Strategy

The panel was scheduled to consider the Royal Borough of Greenwich's Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS). The MTFS was included as a risk because of insufficient government funding combined with inability to make savings quickly and/or safely, and also because of potential significant increase in demand led services. The report noted that the Council set a balanced budget in 2024/25, built in a risk allowance of around 10% to the budget, and is increasing the frequency with which budgets are monitored. The MTFS had previously been discussed at a meeting of the full Council on 24 July 2024, where it was noted that the Council faces a budget gap of £27 million in the 2025-26 financial year.

Demand for School Places

The panel was also scheduled to discuss the demand for school places in the Borough. The risk of insufficient school places, specifically specialist SEN school places (including residential) to meet demand was identified. Several causes of the risk were outlined including an increase in the number of children with Education, Health and Care Plans (EHC Plans) presenting with additional complex needs, insufficient central government SEND funding to meet the growing demand for school places, and delays in the delivery of capital projects and approval of new academies and free schools. The report noted that the Council is developing a whole system approach to falling rolls and demand for SEND provision and that there will be regular liaison with the Department for Education (DfE). This echoes the Planning Board's decision on 23 July 2024 to grant permission for the development of a new SEN school at the former Kidbrook Park Primary School site in Kidbrooke, which will provide 128 much-needed school places.

Cyber Security & Data Breaches

The panel was scheduled to review a report on Cyber Security & Data Breaches. The report stated that the risk is an event/attack that affects the security or availability of the council's network or associated systems, and gave several possible causes, including IT infrastructure failure, Malware/ransomware attacks, and lack of control on the activities of third parties who have access to the Council's systems. The report highlighted that there is 24/7 cyber monitoring in place, mandatory cyber security awareness training has been implemented for staff, and that a new Network Detection and Remediation service is being evaluated.

Achieving Carbon Neutral by 2030

The panel was scheduled to note that Royal Borough of Greenwich aims to be carbon neutral by 2030. The report highlighted that this is a significant risk because the estimated funding required by the council and other organisations to achieve this target is £1.6bn. The report states that all Directorates will assess the specific climate risks that could impact service delivery and develop Business Continuity Plans (BCP) to ensure continuous service delivery to residents and BCPs will be prioritised. It will be continuously updated in line with changes to climate science, delivery of services and available funds. The report also highlights that the council will issue communications to stakeholders to keep them informed and encourage action on climate change, and that Service Capacity Reviews will be carried out to assess each service's capacity to deliver their actions in the Carbon Neutral Plan.

Business Continuity, Emergency Planning

The panel was scheduled to consider Royal Borough of Greenwich's emergency planning. The report suggested that RBG’s emergency planning should ensure that it has the ability to respond when tested and that appropriate Business Continuity Plans are required to ensure that safeguards and contingency measures are in place to ensure the continuity of services following an incident. The report highlighted the Council's Emergency Planning and Business Continuity Management Strategy and noted that an annual review of this strategy was planned.

Health & Safety, Compliance and Wellbeing Procedures

The panel was scheduled to review the council's Health & Safety, Compliance and Wellbeing Procedures. It was noted in the report that there is a new Corporate Health and Safety Plan being rolled out to standardise and improve directorate controls, and that a corporate Cautionary Contact Register is being introduced to help managers reduce risk to staff when dealing with residents who pose a risk to their officers' safety. The report highlights the Council's lone worker policy and its performance dashboard on the position of Health & Safety compliance.

Key Strategic Partnerships and Supply Chain Security

The panel was scheduled to discuss the security of the council's supply chain. It was suggested in the report that in the current economic climate, the businesses the council partners with to deliver key services (including construction) are at risk of failure potentially with significant impact on outcomes for the Council and our residents. The report highlighted that new contract standing orders that enhance contract management requirements were agreed by Full Council on 26 June 2024, and that contract management training will be rolled out across the Royal Borough of Greenwich.

Loss of Life and/or Injury Through Lack of Corporate Estate Building Safety

The panel was scheduled to note that a lack of or poor building maintenance of the corporate estate could result in loss of life or injury to occupiers, residents, visitors, employees or contractors. The report highlighted that DRES is using Concerto database to capture all maintenance and compliance information in one place. Significant time and resources have been invested into ensuring this system captures relevant and as far as is reasonably practicable, accurate information of the corporate estate. A dashboard has been produced and is reviewed regularly. It was also noted that leases and/or occupational agreements with third parties using corporate buildings are being reviewed and that the Council will be launching a Compliance Helpdesk and developing a building compliance dashboard.

Loss of Life and injury through lack of residential building safety

The panel was scheduled to note that the Royal Borough must ensure that Council residential properties are safe and be able to assure itself that the maintenance regime is comprehensive and effective. The report highlighted that Teams Enterprise will enable the monitoring of asbestos inspections, that the Propellor system monitors Fire Risk Assessments and that Northgate will be used for the retention of tenancy and property details. It was also noted that a shared cross boundary contract is in place with Lewisham Council to ensure fire safety work can be undertaken and that an external audit by Savills has been scheduled.

Serious Injury or Death of a Vulnerable Adult

The panel was scheduled to consider the risk of death of, or serious injury to an adult. The report noted that the Council has a comprehensive set of safeguarding procedures that are used across London and that there is a clear set of procedures in place for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. It was also noted that there is ongoing preparation work for an upcoming inspection by the Care Quality Commission.

Compliance with New Procurement Legislation

The panel was scheduled to discuss the council's compliance with new procurement legislation. The report highlighted the fact that following the UK's departure from the European Union, the Government has implemented new legislation that requires the Royal Borough of Greenwich to change how it manages procurement, including the NHS Provider Selection Regime which came into force on 01 January 2024 and The Procurement Act 2023 which comes into force on 28 October 2024. The report suggested that procurement may be delayed as a result of the implementation of the new legislation and noted that the council has purchased a new upgraded eProcurement System and is restructuring and recruiting to new posts in its Procurement Team.

Government Welfare Legislation – Impact on Service Delivery

The panel was scheduled to discuss the impact of Government Welfare Legislation on the delivery of Council services. The report highlighted the risks of increased demand on council resources and potential increases in rent arrears in all housing sectors leading to more homelessness as a result of changes in Government legislation, such as changes to the tax regime for buy to let properties, the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, and the Home Office and Border Agency's response to the War in Ukraine.

Preventable Incident to the Wellbeing of a Child

The panel was scheduled to discuss the risk of a preventable incident to the wellbeing of a child. The report highlighted that Royal Borough of Greenwich promotes and delivers effective safeguarding of children through multi-agency working and noted that Safeguarding practice reviews, robust front door arrangements through the Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub (MASH), and the Ofsted Inspection Framework are helping to mitigate this risk.

Capacity-Workforce Planning

The panel was scheduled to review a report on the council's Capacity-Workforce Planning. The report highlighted that as a large multi-function organisation, the council needs to be able to deliver a diverse range of services and major projects. The report identified several potential causes of risk in this area, such as the failure to recruit, retain and develop a fit for purpose workforce, an aging workforce and lack of succession planning, and failure to deliver on equality, diversity and inclusion. The report noted that a review of the Council's Workforce Strategy is being conducted.

Government Welfare Legislation – Impact on Income Collection

The panel was scheduled to review a report on the impact of Government Welfare Legislation on the Council's ability to collect income. The report noted that the council needs to collect income from residents to maintain/meet its budget obligations to resource the delivery of Council services. The report highlighted that the council will meter and bill heat tariffs and a new collection regime and that it will be undertaking a Hardship Fund review.

Internal Audit and Anti-Fraud – Performance Report April 2024 to June 2024

Finally, the panel was scheduled to note a report on the performance of the Internal Audit and Anti-Fraud team between April and June 2024. This report contained a summary of performance against the 2024/25 Internal Audit Plan, information on anti-fraud activities undertaken during the quarter, and details of the partnership with the London Borough of Bromley for the provision of a fraud investigation service. The report highlighted that Internal Audit are reviewing the methodology by which it reports recommendation implementation to the panel.

Internal Audit Charter 2024/25

The panel was scheduled to note that the annual review of the Internal Audit Charter had been completed. The document defines the nature, role, responsibility, status and authority of Internal Audit within the Royal Borough of Greenwich. It was noted that no changes to the charter were required.

The Licensing Review Sub-Committee was scheduled to meet on Tuesday 20 August 2024 to consider an application for the review of a premises licence for Greenwich Convenience Store, 100 Woolwich Road, SE10 0LE.

Licensing Review Sub-Committee - 20 August 2024

The Licensing Review Sub-Committee was scheduled to meet to consider an application for the review of a premises licence for Greenwich Convenience Store, 100 Woolwich Road, SE10 0LE. This follows a test purchase operation on 9 February 2024, when the shop sold a nicotine-based vape product to a person under the age of 18. As in a similar case heard by the Licensing Sub-Committee B on 23 July 2024, the sub-committee will need to weigh any concerns against the four licensing objectives set out in the Licensing Act 2003:

• The prevention of crime and disorder
• Public safety
• The prevention of public nuisance
• The protection of children from harm

The current application was made by Ian Andrews, Head of Trading Standards & Commercial Environmental Health of the Royal Borough of Greenwich in his capacity as a representative of the Trading Standards team. His application seeks the addition of conditions to the shop’s licence. These conditions are similar to those sought in the case heard on 23 July 2024 and mostly relate to:

• Age verification schemes
• Staff training
• Signage
• CCTV.

Licensing authorities, like Greenwich Council, are required to produce a Statement of Licensing Policy.¹ This document sets out how the authority will apply the licensing objectives when considering applications and must be reviewed every five years.

When making decisions on licensing matters, the Licensing Sub-Committee must follow a strict legal process, which gives applicants and objectors the opportunity to be heard, to ask questions, and to present evidence.

The Licensing Review Sub-Committee was scheduled to meet on Tuesday 20 August 2024 to consider an application for the review of a premises licence for Greenwich Convenience Store, 100 Woolwich Road, SE10 0LE.

Licensing Review Sub-Committee - 20 August 2024

The Licensing Review Sub-Committee was scheduled to meet to consider an application for the review of a premises licence for Greenwich Convenience Store, 100 Woolwich Road, SE10 0LE. This follows a test purchase operation on 9 February 2024, when the shop sold a nicotine-based vape product to a person under the age of 18. This is a similar case to one heard by the Licensing Sub-Committee B on 23 July 2024, where residents raised concerns about the potential for crime, disorder and public nuisance emanating from a shop seeking to extend their hours to sell alcohol 24 hours a day.

As in that case, the sub-committee will need to weigh any concerns against the four licensing objectives set out in the Licensing Act 2003:

• The prevention of crime and disorder
• Public safety
• The prevention of public nuisance
• The protection of children from harm

The current application was made by Ian Andrews, Head of Trading Standards & Commercial Environmental Health of the Royal Borough of Greenwich in his capacity as a representative of the Trading Standards team. His application seeks the addition of conditions to the shop’s licence that require it to:

• Implement the ‘Challenge 25’ scheme.
• Keep a refusals log.
• Ensure that staff are trained on their responsibilities when selling age-restricted products.
• Install CCTV.
• Install signage about the dangers of underage drinking and proxy purchasing.
• Ensure that all alcohol sold for consumption off the premises be labelled with the name of the shop.

Licensing authorities, like Greenwich Council, are required to produce a Statement of Licensing Policy.¹ This document sets out how the authority will apply the licensing objectives when considering applications and must be reviewed every five years.

When making decisions on licensing matters, the Licensing Sub-Committee must follow a strict legal process, which gives applicants and objectors the opportunity to be heard, to ask questions, and to present evidence.

The Licensing Sub-Committee B met on Monday 12 August 2024, and was scheduled to consider two licensing applications.

Licensing Sub-Committee B - 12 August 2024

The Licensing Sub-Committee B was scheduled to consider two applications: the first, an application for a new licence for the sale of alcohol for consumption off the premises from the Charlton Post Office and Convenience Store at 10-12 Charlton Church Lane, and the second, an application to vary the premises licence of the Shell Shooters Hill petrol station to permit the sale of alcohol 24 hours a day.

The Licensing Sub-Committee is responsible for considering applications for new and varied Premises Licences, and for reviewing existing licences. It must ensure that the licensing objectives set out in the Licensing Act 2003 are met. These are:

• The prevention of crime and disorder
• Public safety
• The prevention of public nuisance
• The protection of children from harm

Licensing authorities, like Greenwich Council, are required to produce a Statement of Licensing Policy.¹ This document sets out how the authority will apply the licensing objectives when considering applications and must be reviewed every five years.

When making decisions on licensing matters, the Licensing Sub-Committee must follow a strict legal process, which gives applicants and objectors the opportunity to be heard, to ask questions, and to present evidence.

The Licensing Sub-Committee C convened on Friday 2 August 2024 to consider an application for a new premises licence and to note the memberships held by Councillors on outside bodies. The Overview & Scrutiny Call-in Sub-Committee met on Wednesday 31 July 2024 to consider a call-in of a decision relating to the West & East Greenwich Neighbourhood Management Project. The Standards Committee met on Tuesday 30 July 2024 and noted the annual report for 2023/24 and a list of Councillors' memberships on outside bodies.

Licensing Sub-Committee C - 02 August 2024

The Licensing Sub-Committee C was scheduled to consider an application for a new premises licence for GB10 Sports Limited at 177 Footscray Road, Eltham. GB10 Sports Limited was seeking permission to supply alcohol both on and off the premises from 12:00pm until 11:00pm, seven days a week. This application is similar to one considered by the Licensing Sub-Committee B at their meeting on 23 July 2024. In that instance, the applicant for the Everyday Convenience Store in Plumstead was seeking to extend their licence to permit the sale of alcohol for 24 hours a day.

In addition to considering the application, the committee was also scheduled to consider representations made by local residents and a local Councillor. These residents raised a number of concerns, many of which related to the licensing objective of the prevention of public nuisance.

...music played under the licence will be audible within their homes.

The residents also raised concerns about the potential for antisocial behaviour at the site.

...antisocial behaviour linked with patrons leaving recent events...

This is similar to the concerns raised at the Licensing Sub-Committee B meeting on 23 July 2024, where residents opposing an application to vary a licence also raised concerns about the potential for crime, disorder, and public nuisance. As at that meeting, the Licensing Sub-Committee C will be required to consider the application against the four licensing objectives of the Licensing Act 2003:

• The prevention of crime and disorder
• Public safety
• The prevention of public nuisance
• The protection of children from harm

Declarations of Interest

The committee was also scheduled to note the memberships held by the borough Councillors on outside bodies. These memberships are declared in accordance with the Council's Code of Conduct for Councillors. This code is based on the seven principles of public life, known as the Nolan Principles: selflessness, integrity, objectivity, accountability, openness, honesty and leadership. The report pack included a list of all 82 outside bodies that have Councillor members. These included organisations like the Local Government Information Unit, which describes itself as:

...a think tank and leadership network focused on improving local government across the UK.

The list also included the names of the Councillors who sit on the committees of each outside body.

Overview & Scrutiny Call-in Sub-Committee - 31 July 2024

The Overview & Scrutiny Call-in Sub-Committee was scheduled to meet to consider the call-in of a decision by Councillor Averil Lekau, Cabinet Member for Climate Action, Environment & Transport relating to the West & East Greenwich Neighbourhood Management Project – Trial Scheme. This decision relates to a series of proposed traffic calming measures in West and East Greenwich. The decision to implement a trial of the scheme was made following two public consultations: Stage 1 in 2022 and Stage 2 in 2023. This decision is similar to that relating to the redevelopment of the Kidbrook Park Primary School in Kidbrooke which, as reported in a previous email, was the subject of a planning application considered by the Planning Board at their meeting on 23 July 2024.

Councillors Matt Hartley, John Hills, Maisie Richards Cottell, Leo Fletcher and Lakshan Saldin submitted the call-in and were scheduled to be invited to the meeting to speak to the reasons they had given for making the call-in. Councillors have the right to call-in decisions made by the Cabinet if they believe that the decision has not been made in accordance with the Council's constitution, or if they believe that the decision is not in the best interests of the borough. This right is enshrined in the council's constitution, which sets out how the council operates and makes decisions. The constitution can be found on the council's website.

The called-in decision included the decision to:

“Replace hard closures with Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) camera-enforced closures wherever feasible."

The report pack explains that this decision was taken in response to feedback received from emergency services and the council's waste services. The decision also included provisions to:

“Extend the exemptions proposed in the consultation options (emergency vehicles, refuse vehicles, taxis and Blue Badge holders who have applied for an exemption) to also incorporate: • Organisations which qualify for a Blue Badge (with a free permit); • Individual circumstance exemptions (with a free permit); and • Private Hire Vehicles." “Include part-time operation of camera controlled restrictions (such as modal filters and bus gates). These would operate: • weekdays only; and • peak hours only, between 07:00-10:00 (AM) and 3:00-7:00 (PM).”

The reasons given for the call-in related to:

• The consultation process.
• The results of that consultation.
• The impact of the proposals on surrounding areas.
• How the impacts of the scheme would be monitored.
• The need for more information to be provided to support discussion at the meeting.

In addition to the main report, the report pack also included an Addendum to Call in Report - West East Greenwich Neighbourhood Management Project Trial Scheme that discussed recently released draft statutory guidance on Low Traffic Neighbourhoods and its interaction with the proposals. This guidance, produced by the Department for Transport (DfT), sets out the government’s expectations for how local authorities should design and implement low traffic neighbourhoods. The guidance is not legally binding, but it is likely to be given significant weight by planning inspectors if a decision on a low traffic neighbourhood is appealed.

Declarations of Interests

The meeting report pack included a Declarations of Interest item. This item fulfils the requirements of the Council's Code of Conduct for Councillors to declare any interests that they may have in relation to the matters being discussed. This is to ensure that Councillors do not allow their personal interests to influence their decision-making. The report pack defines a relevant body as:

(a) any organisation, school governing body or outside committee or trust which they have been appointed to by the Royal Borough or by the Leader, or (b) any other voluntary organisation, school governing body or commercial organisation where you are a management committee member, school governor, trustee or director.

The report pack also explains the difference between a personal interest and a financial interest, as well as what the implications are for a Councillor who has either type of interest.

Minutes

The report pack contains the Minutes of Previous Meeting of the Overview & Scrutiny Call-in Sub-Committee meeting held on Monday 24 July 2023. The minutes are a record of the decisions made at a meeting, and they are usually published on the council's website a few days after the meeting. The meeting considered a report on the proposed direct award of a contract for upgrades to properties associated with the Social Housing Decarbonisation Fund.¹

Standards Committee - 30 July 2024

The Standards Committee met and noted the annual report for 2023/24. This report details the work of the Committee over the past year. The report explained that there was a statutory duty upon the Council to promote and maintain high standards of conduct by Members under the terms of Chapter 7 of the Localism Act 2011. The report highlighted the importance of the Nolan Principles in underpinning the Council’s work in promoting these high standards.

The report described the training that had been given to Councillors and stated that the Monitoring Officer would continue to identify and provide training to members. The Committee discussed whether the annual report should be forwarded to Full Council.

The Committee felt that, as the report would be going to Full Council as part of the annual report, it did not need to be a standing item for the Standards Committee to bring to Full Council.

The Committee noted that 9 complaints under the Members’ Code of Conduct had been received since the previous meeting. They also noted that none of these complaints had been sent for investigation.

The Committee noted that, due to the departure of the previous Director of Legal Services, Azuka Onuorah¹, a planned review of the Members’ Code of Conduct had been delayed. They noted that the review would be undertaken in the current year.

Declarations of Interest

The Committee noted the list of Councillors’ memberships (as Council appointed representatives) on outside bodies, joint committees and school governing bodies. The Committee noted that the list does not include bodies with which a Member is involved in a personal or private capacity.

The Licensing Sub-Committee B met on Tuesday 23 July 2024 to consider an application to vary the Premises Licence for the Everyday Convenience Store in Plumstead and to confirm the minutes of two previous meetings. The Planning Board met on the same day to consider a number of planning applications, refusing permission for a major development of 32 flats, but granting permission for the development of a new SEN school. The Cabinet met on Wednesday 24 July 2024, adopting and noting a range of reports, and deciding to continue the council's trading companies beyond March 2025. The Pension Fund Investment & Administration Panel met on Monday 22 July 2024 to confirm the minutes of their previous meeting. The Audit and Risk Management Panel met on the same day and discussed the Council's 2022/23 Annual Audit Letter and a proposal to allocate an additional £1.3m to the Future High Streets Fund programme in Woolwich. The General Purposes Committee met on Wednesday 24 July 2024 to approve a number of new policies, including one to see the Council become a ‘fostering friendly’ employer, and one to provide additional protection for staff who are subject to violence and aggression. The Transport and Place Scrutiny Panel met on Thursday 25 July 2024 to consider its work programme for the 2024/25 municipal year and to receive a verbal update from the Cabinet Member for Climate Action, Sustainability, and Transport. Finally, the Pension Board met on Monday 22 July 2024, receiving training on auditing and accounting standards, noting a report on the performance of the Fund's investment managers, and agreeing its annual report for 2023/24. The Council met on Wednesday 24 July 2024, noting a range of financial reports, and approving the appointment of political assistants.

Licensing Sub-Committee B - 23 July 2024

The Licensing Sub-Committee B met to consider an application to vary the Premises Licence for the Everyday Convenience Store on Malton Street, Plumstead. The applicant, Mrs Kumutham Parameswaran, sought permission to vary the licence to permit the sale of alcohol for 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The application was opposed by four local residents who were concerned about crime, disorder, and public nuisance. The Committee also considered the minutes of two previous meetings.

The Licensing Sub-Committee is responsible for considering applications for new and varied Premises Licences, and for reviewing existing licences. It must ensure that the licensing objectives set out in the Licensing Act 2003 are met. These are:

• The prevention of crime and disorder
• Public safety
• The prevention of public nuisance
• The protection of children from harm

Licensing authorities, like Greenwich Council, are required to produce a Statement of Licensing Policy.¹ This document sets out how the authority will apply the licensing objectives when considering applications and must be reviewed every five years.

When making decisions on licensing matters, the Licensing Sub-Committee must follow a strict legal process, which gives applicants and objectors the opportunity to be heard, to ask questions, and to present evidence.

Planning Board - 23 July 2024

The Planning Board met to consider two planning applications.

The Board is a committee of the council that is responsible for making decisions on planning applications. It considers applications against the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) ² and local planning policies.

The Planning Board refused planning permission for the demolition of a house at 11 Crossmead, Eltham, and the construction of a five-storey development of 32 flats in its place.

The main reasons for refusal were:

• the scale and massing of the proposed building in relation to the surrounding two-storey housing
• the impact on the amenities of the occupiers of the adjoining property
• the lack of affordable housing
• the detrimental effect on views from the nearby Tarn, a local wildlife sanctuary.

The application attracted 135 objections from local residents. The lack of affordable housing in the development was a key concern for many. The applicant's viability assessment concluded that the scheme could not viably provide any affordable housing, though this was challenged by councillors, who highlighted the importance of affordable housing in the London Plan ³, a strategic plan for the development of London. The applicant offered a commuted sum of £232,500 towards the off-site provision of affordable housing. However, this was considered to be insufficient by the board.

Another key concern for many was the impact of the development on the Tarn, which is designated as a Grade 2 Site of Borough Importance for Nature Conservation.⁴ Local residents argued that the development would cause overshadowing, light pollution, and increased run-off, all of which would damage biodiversity. The applicant’s ecological report concluded that the development would have little impact on the ecology of the site, though this was disputed by local residents and councillors.

Ultimately, the Planning Board voted unanimously to refuse the application.

The Planning Board granted planning permission for the redevelopment of the former Kidbrook Park Primary School in Kidbrooke to provide a new two-storey Special Educational Needs (SEN) school for 128 pupils.

The development, which received no objections, will meet the “growing demand and the Borough’s statutory duty to provide sufficient school places”. The school, which will achieve a 37% reduction in carbon emissions compared to building regulations, will be heated by an air source heat pump and will have solar panels. Councillor Gardner raised concerns about the provision of 57 parking spaces, in light of the council’s climate emergency declaration. The applicant’s agent explained that the school would require specialist staff who would need to travel from outside of the borough and would need to arrive at a specific time before the pupils arrive. He also committed to implementing a travel plan that would encourage staff to use public transport and to cycle. A financial contribution of £19,189 towards the Council’s carbon offset fund will be secured through a Director's Agreement.⁵

Cabinet - 24 July 2024

The Cabinet met to consider and approve a range of reports, including new strategies for Community Engagement, Children and Young People, SEND, Culture and Air Quality. It also agreed to continue the council’s two trading companies, GS Plus and Greenwich Service Solutions, beyond March 2025.

The Cabinet is the council’s main decision-making body. It is made up of the Leader of the Council and a number of other senior councillors who are each responsible for a particular area of the council’s work, known as a portfolio. Each Cabinet Member has a number of officers who work with them to develop policy, produce reports, and manage the council’s day-to-day operations. The Cabinet makes decisions in public at its Cabinet meetings, which are usually held once a month.

As well as adopting new policies and strategies, the Cabinet also approves the Council’s budget, which sets out how the Council will spend its money each year. It monitors the Council’s financial performance throughout the year, and makes decisions on how to respond to any financial challenges that may arise. The Cabinet is also responsible for overseeing the work of the council’s scrutiny committees. The scrutiny committees are responsible for scrutinising the work of the Cabinet, and for holding the Cabinet to account for its decisions.

Pension Fund Investment & Administration Panel - 22 July 2024

The Pension Fund Investment & Administration Panel met to confirm the minutes of their previous meeting, which took place on 18 March 2024.

The Pension Fund Investment & Administration Panel is a committee of the council that scrutinises the management of the Royal Borough of Greenwich Pension Fund. The Panel meets four times a year and has the following functions:

• To assist the Pension Board in ensuring that the administration of the Pension Fund is carried out effectively and efficiently.
• To make recommendations to the Pension Board on the Fund’s investment strategy.
• To monitor the performance of the Fund’s investment managers.

Audit and Risk Management Panel - 22 July 2024

The Audit and Risk Management Panel met to discuss the 2022/23 Annual Audit Letter. The Panel noted the draft Statement of Accounts 2023/24 and agreed to provide comments at a later date. The Panel also discussed a proposal to allocate an additional £1.3m to the Future High Streets Fund programme in Woolwich.

The Audit and Risk Management Panel is an independent committee of the council that scrutinises the council’s governance and financial management. It meets six times a year and has the following responsibilities:

• Reviewing the council’s financial statements and the external auditor’s report on those statements.
• Reviewing the council’s risk management framework and the effectiveness of the council’s risk management arrangements.
• Reviewing the council’s internal audit plan and the effectiveness of the council’s internal audit function.

General Purposes Committee - 24 July 2024

The General Purposes Committee met to discuss a number of new policies.

The Committee decided to implement a new policy that will see the Council become a Fostering Friendly Employer. The report discussed the high cost of using private fostering agencies and proposed that by encouraging more staff to become foster carers, the Council could reduce its reliance on these expensive agencies. The policy will provide foster carers with an extra five days of leave per year, as well as a £250 bonus for staff who refer someone who is successfully approved as a foster carer. To gain accreditation as a Fostering Friendly Employer, the Council will apply to The Fostering Network, a UK charity that provides advice and support to foster carers. The Committee also agreed to develop a communications plan to launch the policy and, at the request of Councillor Fletcher, agreed to involve foster carers in the campaign.

The Committee also approved a new policy on violence and aggression towards staff. The report recommending the change highlighted the Council’s legal responsibility to ensure the health, safety and welfare of its staff at work. Councillor Lekau welcomed the report, highlighting the prevalence of violence and aggression toward staff, particularly those who work on the frontline. The Committee also agreed to appoint Councillor Aidan Smith to two scrutiny panels.

Transport and Place Scrutiny Panel - 25 July 2024

The Transport and Place Scrutiny Panel met to discuss its work programme for the year ahead. The Panel is one of the Council’s scrutiny committees and is responsible for scrutinising the work of the Cabinet Member for Climate Action, Sustainability, and Transport and the Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Planning, and Housing.

The Panel’s work programme covers a range of topics, including transport, planning, and climate change. The Panel also receives regular updates from Cabinet Members and senior officers. It then makes recommendations to the Cabinet on how to improve the Council’s work in these areas.

Pension Board - 22 July 2024

The Pension Board met to discuss a range of issues.

The Pension Board is responsible for the governance and administration of the Royal Borough of Greenwich Pension Fund. The Board is made up of elected members and representatives of scheme members and employers. The Board meets four times a year, and its responsibilities include setting the Fund’s investment strategy, approving the Fund’s accounts, and appointing the Fund’s investment managers.

The Board received a presentation on auditing and accounting standards from Hymans Robertson, the Fund's investment advisors.

The Board reviewed the Draft Pension Fund Annual Report 2023/24. This report details the financial performance of the Pension Fund for the year ending 31 March 2024. The report highlights that the fund’s total assets are £1.682 billion. The Board noted that the annual report will be published in draft form by 1 December 2024 to comply with legislation. The final report will be published after it has been audited by the Fund’s external auditors.

The Board approved the Annual Report of the Local Pension Board 2023/24. The annual report details the activity of the Pension Board during the previous financial year. This included receiving training on investment performance and risk management, legislative and governance context, and financial markets and product knowledge.

Finally, the Board noted the minutes of the Pension Investment and Administration Panel meeting held on 18 March 2024 and a report on the performance of the Fund’s investment managers for the quarter ending 31 March 2024.

Council - 24 July 2024

The Council met to discuss a range of reports, including the Annual Audit Letter 2022-2023 and the Medium Term Financial Strategy 2025-26 update.

The Council is the borough’s main decision-making body. It is made up of 55 elected Councillors, who are responsible for setting the Council’s overall strategy, approving the Council’s budget, and holding the Cabinet to account. Full Council meetings usually take place six times per year.

The Council noted the Annual Audit Letter 2022-2023 from Grant Thornton, the Council’s external auditor. The audit found that the council had two significant weaknesses in its financial management arrangements. The first weakness related to the Council’s financial sustainability and the second weakness related to the Council’s economy, efficiency, and effectiveness.

The Council approved the adoption of a new Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) charging schedule. The CIL is a planning charge that local authorities can choose to impose on new developments in their area. The money raised through the CIL is used to fund the infrastructure that is needed to support new development, such as new roads, schools and community facilities. The new CIL charging schedule will see higher rates being charged for development, and more types of development will be included within the scope of the Levy.

The Council also debated and then approved a motion to approve the appointment of political assistants for both the majority and the opposition political groups on the council. The report recommending the change argued that political assistants could improve the effectiveness of joint working between Councillors and Officers. Councillor O’Keeffe, the Labour Leader of the Council argued that the decision would “support us in making this Council sharper and more able to deliver.” Councillor Hartley, the Conservative Leader of the Opposition proposed an amendment to defer the decision, arguing that the principle of political assistants was “completely unjustified”. Councillor Hartley also argued that the report’s claim that political assistants had been recommended by the LGA was a falsehood. Councillor O’Keeffe responded by saying that he “can’t speak for any document that Councillor Hartley has” but said that the LGA recommendations had given the Council the opportunity to “shine a light on ourselves and think about how we reform this Council to continue to deliver for our residents.”

Councillor Hartley’s amendment was defeated, and the motion was passed.

Councillor Masi Raman was appointed as the new Cabinet Member for Planning, Estate Renewal, and Development. Councillor Raman replaced Councillor Aiden Smith who is stepping down from the role to take up a new job.

Finally, the Council noted the Medium Term Financial Strategy 2025-26 update, which showed that the Council faces a budget gap of £27 million in the 2025-26 financial year, and outlined plans to make savings of £33 million to close the gap.

The Greenwich council held 3 meetings in the last week.

Audit and Risk Management Panel

The Audit and Risk Management Panel met on Wednesday 17 July 2024. This is a committee of the council that provides independent assurance that the council’s financial controls, policies and procedures are working effectively.

The Panel discussed a range of financial oversight functions and green initiatives. The Panel noted updates on the Internal Audit ¹ and Anti-Fraud plan, reviewed the Council’s external audit, and discussed a new green investment scheme. The Panel's work echoes that of the Housing and Neighbourhoods Scrutiny Panel meeting that took place on 9 July 2024, which also considered the council's finances, noting a decline in reserves.

Community Municipal Investment and Green Finance Framework

The Panel reviewed and noted the Council’s plans to launch a green Community Municipal Investment (CMI) in partnership with Abundance Investment. The CMI scheme will invite residents to invest in council projects via an online crowdfunding platform. The money will be used to fund projects that:

• Reduce the borough’s carbon footprint.
• Generate cost savings. The Panel also noted the Draft Royal Borough of Greenwich Green Finance Framework, which is a document that sets out the overarching criteria and guidelines as to how the council will issue and manage the CMI. The Council intends to apply to become a signatory to the Local Climate Bond Pledge of the Green Finance Institute (GFI) prior to launching the CMI in September 2024.

Schools Forum

The Schools Forum met on Wednesday 17 July 2024. This forum is made up of elected councillors, headteachers, and representatives of the local authority and governing bodies. It advises the council on the allocation of the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG), the funding that the government gives councils to fund schools.

The forum was asked to note a predicted overspend on High Needs of £2,739,000 for the 2023-24 financial year. This follows an overspend of £460,000 for the year 2022-23, meaning that there is a £3,200,000 accumulated deficit in the High Needs block. Despite the overspend, the total DSG for 2023-24 is predicted to be £1,476,000 over its allocation, with Early Years underspending by £1,263,000.

High Needs Block

The Forum heard that officers in Children’s Services, in conjuction with finance officers are undertaking an ongoing review of the High Needs Block. This is to understand the reasons for the overspend, and will involve a data cleanse and review of the banding arrangements for allocating High Needs funding. Officers expect this to be complete by Autumn 2024.

Academy Conversions

The forum was asked to approve an increase in the fixed fee the council charges schools to convert to academy status. This was discussed in the context of a report on the financial health of maintained schools that stated that

The overall level of Schools reserves has decreased from £8.89m to £7.67m in 2023-24.

The increase in fees was proposed because, while

The decision to issue an academy order is binding on the Council... there is no dedicated academies team within the Council.

The forum heard that this lack of a dedicated team means that officers in other departments are often required to help schools to convert, while still fulfilling their normal duties. The report also mentioned the use of external legal services to support the conversion process. In the case of Kidbrooke Park Primary School, which became an academy in October 2023, the forum heard that external legal fees alone totalled £130,000.

The forum was asked to approve an increase in the fixed fee from £7,000 to £15,000. The report stated that

Although this is unlikely to adequately cover Council's associated expenses, it is expected that this should be sufficient to cover the legal costs for non-complex academy conversions.

Organisation and Communities Scrutiny Panel

The Organisation and Communities Scrutiny Panel met on Thursday 18 July 2024. This panel scrutinises the work of the council's Organisation and Communities directorate. This is the part of the council responsible for things like housing, planning, and environmental health. The panel is made up of elected councillors, and its role is to hold the council's leadership to account.

This meeting received an update from the Cabinet Member Finance, Resources and Social Value, and considered the Organisation and Communities Scrutiny Panel’s work programme for the 2024/25 municipal year. The Panel noted the future reports schedule and considered the scope of future reports.

Work Programme Schedule 2024-2025

The Panel noted the proposed schedule of topics for its future meetings in the 2024/25 municipal year. This will see it scrutinising the performance of the Council's Freedom of Information Act requests process at its meeting on 21st November 2024. This Act gives members of the public the right to request information held by public bodies.

The Local Planning Committee was scheduled to meet on Tuesday 16 July 2024. However, no transcript or recording of the meeting is available.

The Greenwich council held 4 meetings in the last week.

Health and Adult Social Care Scrutiny Panel

The Health and Adult Social Care Scrutiny Panel met on Thursday 11 July 2024. The Panel heard a report about the challenging financial situation facing adult social care in Greenwich. The council’s own figures predict a funding gap of £14.4 million by 2027, as demand for care rises, and funding from central government is cut. The report discussed plans to reduce the number of people in residential care by providing more care in people's homes, and to reduce the cost of care by negotiating lower prices with care providers. Councillors will be hoping to avoid a repeat of the situation in Northamptonshire, where the County Council effectively declared bankruptcy in 2018.

The panel also heard a presentation about a new scheme providing treatment for Musculoskeletal problems. Musculoskeletal problems are injuries or pain in the body's joints, ligaments, muscles, nerves, tendons, and structures that support limbs, neck and back. They are the biggest cause of sickness absence in the UK. The new scheme will see the council working with private health provider Circle Health Group to provide residents with new treatments.

Licensing Sub-Committee C

The Licensing Sub-Committee C met on Monday 08 July 2024 to consider two applications for funding from The Greenwich Neighbourhood Growth Fund. This fund provides grants of up to £10,000 to support community projects.

The committee approved two grants: £9,840 to GB10 Sports Ltd to support their work coaching young people, and £9,999.90 to Greenwich Hospital Market to support their series of markets in Cutty Sark Gardens.

Housing and Neighbourhoods Scrutiny Panel

The Housing and Neighbourhoods Scrutiny Panel met on Tuesday 09 July 2024. Councillors discussed the future of the borough’s garage sites, and whether some of them could be used to build new homes. The council currently lets out around 60% of its 1862 garages across 585 sites. The report considered by the panel suggests that the sites could accommodate up to 400 new homes, though any development would be subject to planning permission.

The panel also agreed their work programme for the coming year, choosing to prioritise a review of the estate regeneration process. Estate regeneration is the process of demolishing and rebuilding existing council estates, and has proved controversial in some London boroughs, with residents of the Aylesbury Estate in Southwark campaigning against their estate’s regeneration for many years.

Blackheath Joint Working Party

The Blackheath Joint Working Party was also scheduled to meet on Tuesday, but no information is available about what was discussed during the meeting, nor is there any information about the duties of the committee.