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.