This week in Wandsworth:

• The Audit Committee heard from the external auditors on the draft accounts for 2023-24, and were told about some issues including the valuation of council dwellings and investment properties, and the misclassification of some garages.
• The Grants Sub-Committee met to decide which organisations would be awarded grants from round two of the 2024 Cost-of-Living Grant Fund. They awarded six grants, and declined five applications, as well as awarding two grants that had been recommended for refusal by council officers.
• The Licensing Sub-Committee considered an application for a new premises licence for a bar on Bedford Hill.
  
• The Local Pension Board was due to hear a presentation on the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) discretions policy, and an update from the Joint Pensions Committee, including next steps following a recent petition from the Wandsworth Friends of Palestine, and review updates on the administration of the Wandsworth Pension Fund.

Audit Committee - Thursday 07 November 2024

The Audit Committee received reports on the council’s arrangements for preventing bribery and money laundering, the progress made in dealing with governance and internal control issues, and an update from the external auditor. The report pack also included the unaudited Statement of Accounts for 2023/24 and a draft of the accounts for 2022/23. As we have discussed in previous emails, the Audit Committee is responsible for scrutinising the council’s finances and for ensuring that public money is being spent wisely.

The committee heard from the external auditors, Ernst & Young (EY), who are responsible for auditing the council’s accounts. The auditors reported that the audit of the 2023/24 accounts was progressing well, and that they expected to be able to issue a report in December 2024. However, they also identified a number of issues with the accounts, including the valuation of council dwellings and investment properties, and the misclassification of some garages.

The auditors also made a number of recommendations for improvement, including that the council should review its processes for classifying property, plant and equipment, and that it should improve its processes for assessing year-end creditor balances. The committee agreed to accept all of the auditors’ recommendations.

The committee also received a report from the Head of Internal Audit, who is responsible for providing independent assurance to the council on the effectiveness of its risk management, control, and governance processes. The Head of Internal Audit reported that 46% of the audits in the 2024/25 Internal Audit Plan had been completed.

The report highlighted a number of areas where the council needs to improve its internal controls, including its management of rent arrears, its procurement processes, and its management of funded nursing care beds. The committee agreed to accept all of the Head of Internal Audit’s recommendations.

The committee also received a report on the council’s arrangements for preventing bribery and money laundering.

Grants Sub-Committee - Wednesday 06 November 2024

The Grants Sub-Committee met to decide which organisations would be awarded grants from round two of the 2024 Cost-of-Living Grant Fund. The committee considered eleven applications, requesting a total of £153,190. The committee agreed to award a total of £80,962 in grants to six organizations, and declined to award grants to five organisations.

As we have discussed in previous emails, the council’s grants programme is designed to support local community and voluntary groups to deliver a wide range of services and projects to the benefit of Wandsworth residents. Applications for grants are assessed against a set of criteria, including the need for the project, the impact it will have, and the organisation's capacity to deliver it.

In this instance, the second round of the Cost-of-Living Grant Fund was specifically targeted at organisations providing support to people struggling with the rising cost of food, heating, and other daily essentials.

The committee also agreed to award grants to two organisations whose applications had been recommended for refusal by council officers.

Tooting Community Kitchen

The committee decided to award a grant of £15,000 to Tooting Community Kitchen to fund its weekly soup kitchen, despite officers recommending that the application be declined. Officers felt that the project was more focused on tackling social isolation than on helping residents with the cost of living, but the committee disagreed, voting to award the money. The committee also asked officers to work with Tooting Community Kitchen to help them develop their capacity to support residents with financial and other needs.

Estate Art CIC

The committee also decided to award a grant of £15,000 to Estate Art CIC despite the application being recommended for refusal. Officers felt that the project was too focused on health outcomes, and did not make a clear enough link to the cost of living. However, after a short debate, the committee voted to award the money. They also asked officers to work with Estate Art CIC to help them develop their governance arrangements and diversify their income.

Licensing Sub-Committee - Wednesday 06 November 2024

This meeting of the Licensing Sub-Committee considered an application for a new premises licence for a bar on Bedford Hill.

Local Pension Board - Monday 04 November 2024

The Local Pension Board was due to hear a presentation on the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS) discretions policy, and an update from the Joint Pensions Committee, including next steps following a recent petition from the Wandsworth Friends of Palestine, and to review updates on the administration of the Wandsworth Pension Fund.

This week in Wandsworth:

• The Council Constitution was adopted by the council.

Council Constitution - Wednesday 30 October 2024

This meeting was about the adoption of the latest version of Wandsworth Council's constitution. The document describes how the council is run and the procedures used to ensure that it is efficient, transparent and accountable to local people. This document sets out how the council operates. It also summarises some of your rights in dealing with the council, for example your right to complain about the council and how to do so.

Summary of the constitution

The constitution starts with a summary of the council's aims and values.

The purpose of the Constitution is to... enable the Council to provide clear leadership to the community in partnership with citizens, businesses and other organisations; support the active involvement of citizens in the process of local authority decision making; help Councillors represent their constituents more effectively.

- PART 1 - Summary and Explanation

It then describes how the council operates, listing the responsibilities and membership of its key components:

• The Council
• The Mayor
• Overview and scrutiny committees
• The Executive
• Regulatory and other committees
• The Standards Committee
• Joint Committees.

It then provides information about the council's staff. Under an agreement with Richmond Council, the vast majority of Wandsworth's staff are jointly employed by both authorities, but Wandsworth notes that it must maintain its own separate constitution by law. The constitution lists all of the senior roles in Wandsworth, including the Executive Director of Adult Social Services and the Executive Director of Children's Services, and says that the council's Chief Executive, Brian Reilly, acts as its Head of Paid Service.

The constitution then summarises the rights of Wandsworth residents in their dealings with the council. This section includes a detailed description of how residents can submit petitions and what rights they have to attend meetings. The document concludes with sections on the council's decision making processes, how it deals with its finances and contracts, and how its constitution can be reviewed and revised.

This week in Wandsworth:

• The Licensing Committee discussed the proposed Statement of Licensing Policy and Principles under the Gambling Act 2005 for 2025-2028 and received an update on Cumulative Impact Assessments.
• The Regulatory Licensing Committee, the Licensing Sub-Committee and the Planning Applications Committee were all due to meet, but no reports or videos were made available, so it is not clear whether they went ahead.

Licensing Committee - Wednesday 23 October 2024

This week's Licensing Committee meeting heard a report on the council's proposed Statement of Licensing Policy and Principles under the Gambling Act 2005. The meeting also heard a verbal update on Cumulative Impact Assessments, which will identify areas of the borough where there is a concentration of licensed premises, such as pubs, clubs and restaurants, and consider whether stricter licensing rules are necessary to reduce crime and disorder.

Statement of Licensing Policy and Principles 2025-2028

The committee considered the proposed Statement of Licensing Policy and Principles 2025-2028, which sets out how the council intends to apply the four licensing objectives in relation to gambling premises. These objectives are:

1. The prevention of crime and disorder
2. Public safety
3. The prevention of public nuisance
4. The protection of children from harm

The meeting heard that a public consultation on the policy was held between 23 July and 7 October 2024, receiving only four responses. As we have discussed in previous emails, consultations allow the council to engage with residents and gather their views on proposed policies and schemes. In this instance, the low number of responses suggests that there is not a great deal of public interest in this particular policy.

The committee approved the proposed statement.

Cumulative Impact Assessments

The committee received a verbal update on the production of Cumulative Impact Assessments (CIAs). As we have discussed in previous emails, CIAs help the council identify where the concentration of licensed premises might be having a negative impact on the local community, allowing it to introduce stricter licensing conditions in those areas.

The committee heard that consultants have been appointed to assist the council with this work, and that the consultants have been analysing a range of data, including crime statistics, CCTV footage, noise complaints, and ambulance call-out data.

As you may recall from a previous email, we have previously discussed the use of CCTV by the council. You may also recall that, back in October, the Safer Neighbourhood Board heard a presentation from Inspector Chris Pinson of the Metropolitan Police on the use of Live Facial Recognition (LFR) technology, which is being used on a trial basis in the borough. This is a controversial technology, with concerns raised about its accuracy, its potential to discriminate against certain groups and its impact on privacy.

The consultants presented their preliminary findings to the committee, which suggest that there is a case for introducing CIAs in Tooting Broadway and Putney High Street. They will present their final report to the committee at its next meeting.

This week in Wandsworth:

• The Council meeting heard statements on family hubs and worker's rights, and debated motions on family hubs and the Winter Fuel Allowance.
• The Joint Pensions Committee heard a deputation from Wandsworth Friends of Palestine, and noted the draft Pension Fund Accounts and investment performance for the previous year.
• The Schools Forum discussed the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) Recovery plan, the success of the Nursery Inclusion Project for All, and the non-EHCP Therapies Investment, and considered school insurance arrangements.
• The Executive agreed to a range of recommendations made by its sub-committees, including the award of a new grounds maintenance contract, plans for a new school and community centre, and updates to the Highways Programme and Housing Revenue Account business plan.

Council - Wednesday 16 October 2024

This week's Council meeting was a busy one, with the Council approving the appointment of Mark Riley as Interim Chief Executive and Ms Popovic as Interim Director of Finance, before considering a number of other matters, including the future of family hubs in the borough, support for residents affected by changes to the Winter Fuel Allowance, and issues with waste collection.

Family Hubs

The Labour group proposed a motion reaffirming the council’s commitment to creating a network of family hubs across the borough.

Family hubs are centres that provide a range of services for families with children under the age of 19, or 25 for young people with special educational needs and disabilities. They are intended to provide a ‘one-stop-shop’ for families, offering a range of services, including early education, health services, parenting support, and advice on benefits and employment. Family hubs were originally introduced by the Labour government in the early 2000s, and were known as Sure Start Children’s Centres. They were a flagship policy of the Labour government, and were seen as a key part of its strategy to tackle child poverty and improve social mobility. In recent years, however, many Sure Start Centres have been closed or have had their funding cut as a result of austerity measures.

The Labour group’s motion this week was designed to signal its intention to reverse this trend and to invest in family hubs as a way to support families and to give children the best start in life. The motion was passed.

Winter Fuel Allowance

The Conservative group proposed a motion calling on the council to use its reserves to provide financial support to residents who have lost their winter fuel payments as a result of changes to the eligibility criteria.

The Winter Fuel Payment is a tax-free payment that is made to people who were born on or before 25 September 1957 to help them pay their heating bills. Until recently, all pensioners received the payment, regardless of their income. However, the government recently changed the eligibility criteria, so that now only pensioners who receive pension credit are eligible for the Winter Fuel Payment. Pension credit is a means-tested benefit for people who are over state pension age and on a low income.

The Conservative group argued that the change to the eligibility criteria will unfairly impact a lot of pensioners in Wandsworth, many of whom are ‘just about managing’ and do not qualify for pension credit, but are still struggling to make ends meet.

The Labour group opposed the motion, arguing that it would be irresponsible to use the council's reserves to fund a payment that is the responsibility of central government. They also argued that the council is already doing a lot to support residents who are struggling with the cost of living, such as providing free school meals and uniforms, offering crisis payments, and running campaigns to encourage people to claim benefits.

The motion was lost.

Waste Collection

Councillor John Hedges (Conservative, Shaftesbury) spoke about what he described as “ongoing issues with the new waste collection service”, claiming that the roll-out of food waste collections had been a failure.

This is an issue that we have been following in recent weeks. You may recall that back in July, we discussed the introduction of weekly food waste collections on housing estates and the committee’s interest in the cost of the scheme. Councillor Hedges claimed that the council had not done enough to communicate with residents about the new service, and that this had led to confusion and frustration. He also said that the service was not being delivered consistently, with many residents reporting missed collections.

Councillor Judy Gasser, the Cabinet Member for Environment, defended the council’s record, saying that the new waste collection service was still being rolled out and that teething problems were inevitable. She said that the council is committed to delivering a “cleaner borough” and that it was investing an additional £1.5 million a year in the service.

Councillor Gasser also said that the council is working to improve communication with residents and that it has produced a range of materials, including leaflets and videos, to explain how the new service works. She also said that the council is taking steps to address the issue of missed collections, saying that it had recruited additional staff and was working with the contractor to improve performance.

Joint Pensions Committee - Tuesday 15 October 2024

This week’s meeting of the Joint Pensions Committee heard a deputation from Wandsworth Friends of Palestine before going on to consider a range of other matters, including the Pension Fund Accounts for 2023-24 and the performance of the Pension Fund’s investments over the previous year.

Deputation from Wandsworth Friends of Palestine

The committee heard a deputation from Michael Stone and Aisha Sharpe of Wandsworth Friends of Palestine, who requested that the council divest from companies that invest in Israel. They argued that the council had a moral obligation to divest from companies complicit in the ongoing situation in Gaza and the West Bank, and that doing so would be a financially sound decision in the long run. The deputation suggested that Waltham Forest Council, who have made steps towards divestment from Israel, could provide a useful model for the committee to follow.

You may recall that in a previous email, we discussed the role of the Joint Pensions Committee, which is to administer the Wandsworth Pension Fund, in line with the requirements of the Local Government Pension Scheme Regulations 2013.

Pension Fund Accounts and External Audit Report 2023-24

The committee received a presentation from Ben of EY, the council’s external auditors, on the draft Pension Fund Accounts for 2023-24. Ben reported that the audit was progressing well, that they were recommending an unqualified audit opinion, and that the accounts were on track to be signed off by the statutory deadline of 28 February 2025.

You may recall that in previous emails, we have discussed the difficulties that many local authorities have faced in recent years in producing timely and accurate accounts. The fact that the Pension Fund Accounts are on track to be signed off by the deadline suggests that the council is making good progress in addressing these issues.

There were several questions about the audit from members of the committee, including a question about a figure in the accounts that appeared to relate to the funding level of the Pension Fund. The funding level is the ratio of the Pension Fund’s assets to its liabilities.

Mr Gelotti, the Deputy Director of Finance, explained that the figure quoted was incorrect because it did not take account of the Pension Fund’s asset shock reserve. This is a reserve that the council holds in order to provide a buffer in the event of a sudden fall in the value of the Pension Fund’s assets, which can happen when the markets crash, as happened during the 2008 financial crisis, and again in the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic. The asset shock reserve is designed to help protect the Pension Fund from the impact of such events, ensuring that it can continue to pay pensions to its members.

Quarterly Investment Performance to June 2024

The committee considered a report on the investment performance of the Pension Fund in the quarter to 30 June 2024. The meeting was told that the fund had performed well, outperforming the local authority average and delivering a positive return. However, it was noted that the fund was still some way off its target return. The meeting discussed whether the underperformance of some of the Pension Fund’s active fund managers, who are paid to make investment decisions on behalf of the Pension Fund, meant that the council should consider moving more of its assets into passive investments which simply track a particular index, such as the FTSE 100. Passive investment is often seen as a more cost-effective way to invest, as the fees charged by passive fund managers are typically lower than those charged by active fund managers. However, passive investment can also be less flexible, as the fund manager does not have the discretion to make changes to the portfolio in response to changes in market conditions.

General Matters Report

The committee considered a report on a number of general matters relating to the Pension Fund. This included an update on the council’s plans to sell its investment in the Nuveen UK Property Fund. You may recall that we discussed the Nuveen fund in a previous email, and the council’s decision to sell its investment in the fund following its poor performance.

The report explained that the council had received a number of bids for the investment and was in the process of negotiating a sale. The report also provided an update on the Government Actuary’s Department (GAD) annual review of the Pension Fund. GAD is an independent body that provides actuarial advice to the government. The report explained that GAD had given the Pension Fund a ‘green’ rating, which means that it is satisfied with the way in which the fund is being managed. The report also explained that GAD uses a different set of assumptions to those used by the council when calculating the funding level of the Pension Fund.

The committee approved all of the recommendations in the report.

Schools Forum - Monday 14 October 2024

The Schools Forum meeting included information on the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) Recovery plan, the success of the Nursery Inclusion Project for All (NIPA), and an update on the non-EHCP Therapies Investment. The forum discussed a number of other matters, including school insurance arrangements.

The Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) is a ring-fenced grant that is paid to local authorities by the Department for Education. It is intended to fund schools, and as you may recall from a previous email, local authorities are required to produce a scheme for financing schools each year. The scheme sets out how the local authority will distribute the DSG to schools in its area.

Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) Recovery

The meeting was told that the council is facing financial challenges in providing for students with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND). This is a trend we have seen across the country, with the cost of SEND provision rising in recent years.

The increase in demand for SEND provision is thought to be due to a number of factors, including:

• An increase in the number of children being diagnosed with autism and other neurodevelopmental conditions;
• A reduction in the amount of support available to schools from other services, such as health and social care;
• An increase in the number of children with complex needs.

The Children and Families Act 2014 placed a duty on local authorities and health services to work together to produce an Education, Health and Care Plan (EHCP) for each child or young person who requires more support than is ordinarily available in schools. EHCPs are legal documents that set out the child or young person’s needs and the support that they will receive.

The increase in demand for SEND provision has led to a significant increase in the number of EHCPs being issued. As a result, many local authorities are now facing a deficit in their DSG.

The forum received a report on the council’s DSG Recovery plan which outlines a number of measures that are being taken to address the deficit.

These include:

• The Nursery Inclusion Project for All (NIPA): This project aims to provide support to children with SEND in their nursery year in order to prevent them from requiring an EHCP.
• Investing in additional therapies at an SEN support level: This is intended to ensure that children with SEND who do not have an EHCP can still access the support that they need.
• Expanding Resource Base (RB) Provisions: Resource Bases are specialist classes in mainstream schools that provide support for children with specific needs, such as autism. They can help to prevent children from needing to be educated in special schools.

The forum heard that the NIPA project had been particularly successful, with a reduction in the number of requests for EHCPs at reception age and Year 6 since the project was introduced. The forum also heard that there were some proposed changes to the provision of speech and language therapy. The proposed changes aim to increase the focus on providing support to schools to enable them to deliver targeted interventions independently, reducing the need for children to have direct sessions with speech and language therapists.

Executive - Monday 14 October 2024

The Executive meeting this week saw the council agree a range of proposals put forward by its sub-committees, including plans for a new school and community centre in Nine Elms, approval for a new grounds maintenance contract, and an update on the progress of the Highway Maintenance Programme. The Executive was also updated on its response to the cost of living crisis and its work to increase the take-up of benefits by residents.

Cost of Living Support

The Executive was updated on the council’s response to the cost of living crisis. The meeting heard that the Council’s cost of living fund is the biggest in London and was told that the government’s Household Support Fund, which was extended earlier this year, will be used to provide support for parents, free school uniforms and free school meals, intended to benefit 10,000 children.

Highways Maintenance Programme

The meeting received an update from the Transport Committee on the progress of the Highway Maintenance Programme for 2024/25. You may recall that in previous emails, we have discussed the importance of the Highways Maintenance Programme, and the challenges that the council faces in maintaining the borough’s roads and pavements, which have been deteriorating in recent years.

The Executive was told that the budget for road and pavement resurfacing had been significantly increased at its February meeting, following a report from the Transport Committee on the state of the borough’s roads. The Executive was told that the extra money for the Programme will come, in part, from the ‘un-ringing’ of the fencing at the Nine Elms sill, which is a piece of infrastructure that carries a development right over a road, railway, or other piece of land. This will release money that can be spent on other projects.

School and Community Facilities in Nine Elms

The Executive agreed a proposal from the Children’s Committee to build a new school and community centre in Nine Elms. The new building will include a new school for St George’s Church of England Primary School, a community space, an indoor sports hall, and a multi-use games area. The new building will be funded by contributions from developers, as is frequently the case with major developments. However, the Executive was told that it may also be necessary to increase council tax to fund the project.

Grounds Maintenance Contract

The Executive agreed to award a new grounds maintenance contract. The contract, which will start in February 2025, will cover a range of services, including grass cutting, hedge trimming, and litter picking on the borough’s housing estates. The decision to award the contract followed a period of consultation with residents' groups, who expressed concerns about the quality of the service provided under the previous contract. The Executive was told that the new contract would deliver a better service for residents.

HRA Business Plan Update

The meeting received an update on the Housing Revenue Account (HRA) business plan, which sets out how the council will manage its housing stock. You may recall that in previous emails, we have discussed the importance of the HRA and the challenges that the council faces in providing affordable housing in the borough.

The Executive was told that the HRA is in a very strong position and that it is planning to invest £563 million in improvements to its housing stock over the next four years. This will include building 1,000 new council homes by 2027.

Bike Hanger Update

The meeting was updated on the installation of bike hangers across the borough. You may recall that in a previous email, we discussed the council’s plans to install more bike hangars, following an increase in the number of people cycling in the borough. The Executive was told that the council is planning to consult on proposals for a further phase of installations.

Battersea B9 CPZ Operational Review

The Executive received a report on the outcome of a review into changes to the Battersea B9 Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ). You may recall that in a previous email, we discussed the importance of CPZs and the challenges that the council faces in managing parking in the borough.

The Executive agreed to make the changes permanent, following a positive response from residents during a period of consultation.

Annual Petitions Review

The Executive received a report from the Transport Committee on petitions relating to transport that have been submitted to the council in the previous year. You may recall from previous emails that we have discussed the importance of petitions, and the role that they play in enabling residents to hold the council to account.

General Fund Capital Programme

The Executive received a report from the Finance Committee on the Capital Programme, which is funded through the General Fund. You may recall that in previous emails, we have discussed the importance of the Capital Programme, and the challenges that the council faces in funding major projects.

The report included an update on the progress of a number of schemes, including:

• Plans to improve the Falcon Road underpass, which is located near Clapham Junction Station and is a key route for pedestrians and cyclists. The Executive was told that the underpass will be redesigned to make it more attractive and welcoming.
• Plans to expand childcare provision at Putney Leisure Centre. The Executive was told that the expansion will be funded by a grant from the Department for Education.

Delivering a Cleaner Borough Plan

The meeting received a report from the Finance Committee on the Council’s plans to become the cleanest borough in London. You may recall that in previous emails, we have discussed the importance of street cleanliness and the challenges that the council faces in keeping the borough’s streets clean. The Executive was told that an additional budget of £1.5 million had been approved to fund the Cleaner Borough plan.

Budget Variations

The Executive received a report from the Finance Committee setting out variations to the budget. You may recall from a previous email that the budget is the council’s plan for how it will spend its money each year. The budget is reviewed regularly, and variations are made to it to reflect changes in circumstances.

The report that the Executive received was a ‘wash-up’ paper. This is a type of report that is produced to adjust the budget following decisions made by other committees to approve additional spending.

This concludes our summary of this week’s meetings of Wandsworth Council. We will continue to keep you updated on the council’s activities in our weekly emails.

This week in Wandsworth:

• The Children's Committee heard a presentation about the work of the Wandsworth Youth Council and the Youth Mayor and discussed the construction of a new primary school and community centre at Nine Elms.
• The Transport Committee discussed the financial performance of the council's transport and place services, reviewed an update on the provision of bike hangars, agreed to make the Battersea B9 CPZ permanent, reviewed petitions received on transport matters, and noted the highway maintenance programme for 2024/25.
• The Health Committee met on Monday but did not publish a transcript for their meeting.
• The Safer Neighbourhood Board heard a presentation on the use of live facial recognition (LFR) technology in the borough, and a presentation on the council’s response to crime and anti-social behaviour.
• The Licensing Sub-Committee met on Wednesday but did not publish a transcript for their meeting.
• The Finance Committee discussed the council's cost of living support, agreed the Quarter 1 budget variations, and agreed the Quarter 1 Capital Programme Update.

Children's Committee - Tuesday 08 October 2024

This week's meeting of the Children's Committee heard a presentation from the Wandsworth Youth Council and the Deputy Youth Mayor, Favour Oniri, about their work. The committee also discussed plans for the design and construction of a new primary school and community centre at Nine Elms.

Youth Council and Youth Mayor

The committee heard a report on the work of the Wandsworth Youth Council and the recently appointed Youth Mayor, Millie Quinn and Deputy Youth Mayor, Favour Oniri. The committee was unable to watch a video prepared by the Youth Mayor but were told about the work of the Youth Council in recent months, and heard from Favour Oniri about her priorities as Deputy Youth Mayor.

Councillor Kate Stock, the Cabinet Member for Children, thanked the Youth Mayor, Deputy Youth Mayor and Youth Council members for attending the meeting. You may recall that in a previous email, we discussed how scrutiny committees can hold the executive to account by asking questions of cabinet members.

Design and Construction of the Primary School and Community Facility Building at Nine Elms Battersea

The Committee discussed a report on the design and construction of the new primary school and community centre at Nine Elms, a major regeneration project south of the river. St George's Church of England Primary School, which is currently located on the Patmore Estate, will relocate to the new site.

The committee raised a number of questions about the report, including about the increase in the project’s budget from £55 million to £77.4 million, and why a press release announcing that the project would go ahead had been issued despite the committee not yet having approved the funding for it.

The committee voted to support two of the recommendations in the report, which will allow the project to go ahead. However, the committee abstained on the recommendation that related to the funding of the overspend, arguing that they needed more information before they could approve the additional £22.4 million. This means that the Executive will have to make a final decision on whether to approve the funding for the overspend, after considering the committee’s abstention.

Transport Committee - Monday 07 October 2024

The Transport Committee reviewed the financial performance of the council's transport and place services, received an update on the provision of bike hangars, agreed to make the Battersea B9 CPZ permanent, reviewed petitions received on transport matters, and noted the highway maintenance programme for 2024/25. You may recall that in a previous email, we discussed how the Transport Committee scrutinises the council’s transport policies and budget.

Budget Monitoring 2024/25: Quarter One

The committee discussed the Quarter 1 budget monitoring report for 2024/25. The report projects that services within the remit of the Transport Overview and Scrutiny Committee are currently forecast to be delivered on budget, with a small variance of £18,000 compared to the revised net budget of £1.84 million.

The committee was particularly interested in a projected overspend of £189,000 in the Development Management Service. This overspend is driven by a shortfall in planning application income, high staffing costs caused by recruitment and retention issues, and the cost of implementing the council's new combined planning software system. As you may recall from a previous email, the cost of recruiting staff has been an issue for the Council in recent months.

The report also details a £2 million shortfall in parking income. This shortfall has been attributed to a change in motorists' behaviour, with fewer people driving and parking their cars than in previous years. This is a trend that we have discussed in previous emails, with the council having to make adjustments to its budget to reflect the fact that income from parking charges is falling.

Bike Hanger Update

The committee received an update on the provision of bike hangars in the borough.

The committee also discussed ways to increase the uptake of bike hangars on housing estates, where occupancy rates are currently lower than those for bike hangars located on streets.

Battersea B9 CPZ: Operational Review

The committee received the outcome of the operational review of the Battersea B9 CPZ.

A Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) is an area where parking is restricted to residents and businesses who have a permit. CPZs are introduced to reduce parking stress and improve the quality of life for residents.

The review found that the CPZ was operating effectively, and the committee agreed to make it permanent.

Annual Petitions Review

The committee received an annual review of petitions relating to traffic and engineering matters.

As you may recall from a previous email, residents can submit petitions to the council on a range of issues. The council is required to consider all petitions that it receives and to provide a response.

Highway Maintenance Programme 2024/25

The committee received an update on the 2024/25 Highway Maintenance Programme.

The committee discussed a range of issues, including the need to increase investment in the borough’s roads and pavements, and the importance of coordinating works with the council’s housing team to ensure that they are value for money.

Safer Neighbourhood Board - Tuesday 08 October 2024

The Safer Neighbourhood Board met this week to discuss two key topics. The Board first considered a presentation on the use of Live Facial Recognition (LFR) in the borough, and then received an update from the council’s Community Safety Team Manager on the partnership approach to tackling crime and anti-social behaviour in the borough.

Live Facial Recognition

As we have discussed in previous emails, one of the key functions of the Safer Neighbourhood Board is to scrutinise the work of the police and to hold them to account. This often involves challenging police officers about their use of powers and seeking assurances that their actions are proportionate and lawful.

In this instance, the Board heard a presentation from Inspector Chris Pinson of the Metropolitan Police Service on the use of LFR. You may recall that the use of LFR by the Metropolitan Police has been the subject of much debate in recent years, with concerns raised about its accuracy, its potential to discriminate against certain groups, and its impact on privacy.

Inspector Pinson explained that the technology was being used on a trial basis in Wandsworth and that it is assisting the police in locating wanted offenders.

He went on to say that the locations where the technology is deployed are carefully chosen, and that the local community and partners are consulted.

The Board raised a number of questions about the use of LFR, including whether it unfairly targets certain groups, and whether it is effective in reducing crime. Inspector Pinson responded that the technology has been rigorously tested to ensure that it is not discriminatory, and that it has been shown to be effective in identifying suspects.

Crime and Antisocial Behaviour in Wandsworth

The Board then heard from Lee Spear, the Community Safety Team Manager for Wandsworth Council. He outlined the work being done by the Council to tackle crime and anti-social behaviour.

As we have discussed in previous emails, the Council works in partnership with the police and other agencies to tackle crime and anti-social behaviour. You may recall that in a previous email, we discussed a proposal to make changes to the Community Trigger process, which is a statutory process that allows victims of persistent anti-social behaviour to request a review of their case.

Mr Spear explained to the board how the council uses a range of tools and powers to tackle crime and anti-social behaviour, including the use of CCTV, Community Protection Notices and Public Spaces Protection Orders (PSPOs). He also spoke about the importance of partnership working, saying that the Council works closely with the police, schools and community groups to address the root causes of crime.

Members of the Board raised a number of issues relating to crime and anti-social behaviour in their wards, including rough sleeping, drug dealing, shoplifting and vehicle crime.

Inspector Pinson and Mr Spear responded to the points raised, providing updates on actions being taken. They highlighted the importance of residents reporting crime and providing as much information as possible to assist the police with their investigations.

Safer Neighbourhood Panel Updates

As we have discussed in previous emails, Safer Neighbourhood Panels are made up of local residents, police officers and council officers. They provide a forum for residents to raise concerns about crime and anti-social behaviour and to work together to find solutions.

The Board heard from a number of Panel Chairs, who provided updates on the issues being discussed in their local areas.

Finance Committee - Wednesday 09 October 2024

The Finance Committee discussed the council's cost of living support, agreed the Quarter 1 budget variations, and agreed the Quarter 1 Capital Programme Update. You may recall that in a previous email, we discussed the role of the Finance Committee in scrutinising the council’s budget and finances.

Cost of Living Support

The committee discussed a report on the council’s Cost of Living Support work. The report detailed how the council’s support hub is assisting residents with issues such as claiming benefits and managing debt.

Budget Variations

The committee considered a report setting out the council’s Quarter 1 budget variations. As you may recall from a previous email, local authorities are required to produce a budget each year, setting out how they plan to spend their money. The budget is then reviewed regularly, and variations are made to it to reflect changes in circumstances.

Quarter 1 Capital Programme Update

The committee received a report on the council’s capital programme. You may recall from a previous email that the capital programme sets out the council’s plans to spend money on major projects, such as new buildings, roads and parks.

The report provided an update on the progress of the capital programme, highlighting that work had begun on the redevelopment of the Battersea Civic Centre. This project was described in the report as the Council’s single biggest investment project, with a budget of £42m.

Last week in Wandsworth:

• The Standards Committee met on Wednesday but did not publish a transcript for their meeting.
• The Health and Wellbeing Board discussed a new pathway for supporting children under 8 years old who have been referred for an autism diagnosis, heard updates on the Better Care Fund, the Joint Local Health and Wellbeing Strategy, and the Health and Care Plan 2022-2024, and considered the findings of the Homelessness and Health Needs Assessment.
• The Housing Committee heard reports on housing services, budgets and the Housing Revenue Account, discussed issues related to homelessness, and awarded a new grounds maintenance contract.
• The Standing Advisory Council on Religious Education was scheduled to hear a presentation on monitoring RE in schools, consider an Ofsted report on religious education, and discuss how faith groups can be involved in the London Borough of Culture celebrations in 2025.
• The Executive approved grants to several local charities, adopted a new protocol for responding to antisocial behaviour, and discussed plans to bring some services provided by Enable Culture and Leisure back in house.
• The General Purposes Committee noted a report on the next stage of the Democracy Review, and agreed to set up a task and finish group.

Health and Wellbeing Board - Thursday 03 October 2024

The Health and Wellbeing Board agreed to the following three recommendations for the Emerging Needs Pathway for supporting children under eight years old who have been referred for an autism diagnosis:

1. Note the current issues experienced by families.
2. Note the proposal for a new model with two pathways running in parallel.
3. Hold the council and partners to account for their areas of responsibility and to monitor the outcomes of the new pathway.

The board also approved both the end-of-year review for 2023/24 and the plan refresh for 2024/25 of the Better Care Fund, and agreed to the proposals for coordinating the delivery of the Joint Local Health and Wellbeing Strategy. Finally, the board noted the final report on the Health and Care Plan 2022-2024, the findings of the Homelessness and Health Needs Assessment, the interactive semi-automated JSNA products and the work programme. The Board also agreed to the revised terms of reference.

Emerging Needs Pathway

The Board discussed a report on the Emerging Needs Pathway. This is the process of diagnosis and support for children under eight who have been referred for possible Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). The referral comes from health services through the Child Development Centre.

Concerns were raised about the current pathway, which was set up in 2019. Families experience long waiting lists, and while they are waiting there is a lack of communication, information and advice for them, which has been linked to an increase in complaints. At the point of transfer to health colleagues in June 2024, 1000 children were waiting for triage. By the end of September 2024, it is anticipated a further 100 will have been added to the list. There are only 62 appointments remaining for the rest of 2024, but 225 children are waiting for an assessment.

The two organizations involved in the pathway, Wandsworth Council and the South West London Integrated Care Board (ICB), are undergoing substantial changes, which was mentioned as a reason for the problems in the pathway. The new model for the pathway proposes two parallel pathways, with the council providing pre and post diagnostic support and the ICB taking responsibility for the diagnosis wait list. This is intended to reduce wait times, put responsibility where it should lie and align with the new SEND and AP improvement plan, which is the Government’s plan for improving support for children and young people with Special Educational Needs and Disabilities.

The board was told that both organizations have been working together to learn from best practice in other areas, such as the model used by the Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust and that parents have been involved in reviewing the pathway through workshops.

Councillor Kate Stock asked that the board be kept updated on the waiting times, which the report recommendations provided for. There were further questions from the board on modelling the potential benefits of the new pathway, how to communicate with parents during the waiting period, the role of other healthcare professionals such as GPs and school nurses in identifying children with possible ASD, and the reasons for the increasing number of children being referred.

Councillor Stock commented on the importance of the matter by saying:

these are our most vulnerable children. We need to make sure that these are absolutely the priority.

There was a suggestion that a more regular update be provided to the board.

The board agreed to the three recommendations set out in the report.

Better Care Fund

The board discussed two reports on the Better Care Fund, which is a programme that supports local systems to integrate health and social care services.

The board first discussed a report on the end-of-year update for 2023-24, which showed the progress made towards the ambitions set out in the plan. The board heard that four of the five national conditions had been met and that the pooled budget had been fully spent.

The board was told that there had been a lot of good partnership working across the health and care system, and this had been successful in supporting people to remain at home. There were two metrics that were not achieved: avoidable admissions and permanent admissions to residential care. This was partly due to a rise in the number of patients attending St. George's Hospital with heart failure, and a spike in residential admissions, although this was from a small baseline.

There were questions from the board about whether anything would change this year to enable the avoidable admissions and residential admissions targets to be met, whether the reporting could be made clearer and how carers are supported during the discharge process. It was suggested that the experience of carers could be improved if there was a ‘patient advocate’ to coordinate care. The board was told that there was an integrated discharge hub between the council and St George's Hospital to ensure that discharges are safe and that the right support mechanisms are in place, including information and advice for patients and carers.

Councillor Henderson commented on the importance of joined up working between council departments, saying:

one of the objectives of the administration is to ensure much more joint up working between the various departments within the council.

Councillor Stock agreed with this, and asked for more information about the quality of housing, and the impact this has on health.

A board member raised the importance of considering health inequalities in the analysis of the data, saying:

we can see that, you know, we've done very well on discharging people back home. We've hit ninety three point eight percent of the target. But where we're missing the target, have we got a disproportionate impact on certain elements of our communities?

It was agreed that the very useful comments and suggestions from members of the board would be taken away and reflected upon by officers.

The board then discussed the 2024/25 refresh of the plan. The board was told that the refresh was built on the end-of-year return and included a narrative update, refreshed demand and capacity reporting, and an agreement on the spend.

The board heard that there was a new metric included in the plan to measure the average time in days between when someone is referred to be discharged and when their service starts. This is intended to support conversations about how quickly and safely people can be discharged and where blockages in the system are.

There was discussion about the importance of ensuring that people admitted to hospital are discharged quickly and safely, the role of proactive care planning, and the importance of understanding why the targets are not being met.

Dr. Jogiya commented on the value of proactive care planning in preventing admissions to hospital, saying:

there is this proactive care model in place in GP surgeries, with particular emphasis on the patients that are the most vulnerable, called the enhanced care pathway

The board agreed to the recommendations set out in both reports.

Joint Local Health and Wellbeing Strategy

The board discussed a report on the delivery of the Joint Local Health and Wellbeing Strategy for 2024-29. The board heard that the strategy has 19 steps and that work had begun to identify a sponsor, lead and action lead for each step.

The board was told that progress on the appointments to the roles was good, but there were still some gaps, particularly for steps relating to adult and child mental health, childhood immunisations and screening.

The report proposed a timetable for reporting on the progress of the strategy to the board. The board was told that the strategy would be delivered through the Health and Care Plan, and each step would prioritise specific activities over the next 12 to 18 months. There would be an annual report to the Health and Care Committee and the board would receive quarterly reports.

The board agreed to the recommendations in the report.

Health and Care Plan 2022-24

The board considered a final report on the Health and Care Plan 2022-24. This report detailed the projects that had taken place and the impact that they have had on the health and wellbeing of the local population.

The board heard that there had been some significant successes in areas such as improving the discharge process for people leaving hospital, supporting people to live well by using innovative and community tailored approaches, and strengthening the support offered to older people in care homes.

There were comments from the board on the importance of maintaining a longer-term perspective when reviewing the plan, the need to be mindful that not all the data was immediately available, and the impact of competing pressures for resources on the ability to deliver the plan.

A member of the board, who is a paediatrician, raised their concerns that Type 1 diabetes was not included in the plan, saying:

Being a pediatrician, I'm just a little bit surprised that one of the most common chronic childhood disease, type 1 diabetes, is not on the list.

They went on to point out that:

every single hour, there is one newly diagnosed type 1 patient in the United Kingdom.

The board was told that the plan was developed through a process of consultation, and the decision about what to include in it was based on what partners could achieve together, rather than focusing on individual conditions. However, it was agreed that the issue of Type 1 diabetes could be discussed offline.

Mr. Hickey raised the issue of maintaining a longer-term perspective of the plan, suggesting:

somewhere I kind of feel the need. We ought to be always reminding ourselves of 10 year kind of perspective.

The board agreed to note the activities delivered under the plan and approve the final report.

Homelessness and Health Needs Assessment

The board discussed the findings of the Homelessness and Health Needs Assessment, which found that levels of homelessness in Wandsworth have increased significantly over the last 10 years.

The board was told that the assessment had identified a number of gaps in service provision, particularly in relation to mental and physical health needs and substance misuse. There was also a lack of joined up approaches to services for homeless people, both at the borough and regional levels.

The assessment found that the demand for homeless health services is high and that capacity within teams may provide challenges in managing demand.

There was discussion about the need to increase collaborative working, the benefits of providing outreach services and the importance of considering health inequalities in the delivery of homeless health services. There were questions from the board about the quality of housing and the impact this has on health, the need for an action plan following the needs assessment and the potential role of community safety officers in supporting rough sleepers.

The board was told that the council is committed to improving the quality of housing and has a programme in place to build 1,000 new homes across the borough. They were also told that a rough sleeper hub is currently being developed that will offer accommodation and support services for rough sleepers in a one-stop-shop.

The board agreed to note the findings of the needs assessment and to provide feedback on the recommendations. The board was asked to support the dissemination of the findings.

Councillor Henderson acknowledged the importance of housing and the impact it has on health, saying:

it's just widely recognised, certainly from my perspective, housing is the principal determinant of health inequalities.

Interactive Semi-Automated JSNA Production Update

The board was given an update on the interactive, semi-automated Joint Strategic Needs Assessment (JSNA) products that are now live on the Wandsworth Council website.

The board was told that the JSNA is a tool that is used by commissioners, the voluntary sector and researchers to understand the health needs of the local population. The new products are more interactive and easier to use and contain key indicators and narratives for each of the health topics covered.

The board heard that the next steps for the JSNA include a periodic refresh of the template, training and documentation for ongoing management and a major refresh of the content in 2026.

The board agreed to note the update.

Revision of Terms of Reference

The board discussed and agreed to a revised set of terms of reference for the board.

The key changes are:

• Updating the terms of reference to reflect the new integrated care system structures.
• Including a carers' representative as a core member of the board.
• Clarifying the definition of ‘deputations’, and allowing more flexibility in the number of seminars delivered each year.
• Allowing the board to invite specialist organizations to contribute to agenda items on topics relating to their expertise.

Councillor Henderson suggested inviting special interest groups to give presentations to the board, and expressed his hope that the revised terms of reference will help to make the board more relevant. He said:

I often feel that sometimes a bit lost that other people could benefit from them and we could actually benefit considerably from other people with expertise in specific areas.

There was a suggestion from the board that an easy-read version of the terms of reference, or a translation into different languages, could improve accessibility and inclusivity.

The board agreed to approve the revised terms of reference.

Health and Wellbeing Board Work Programme

The board noted the Health and Wellbeing Board work programme.

The board was told that the work programme is a live document, and will be regularly reviewed and updated. There are currently two seminars planned: one in January 2025 on developing partnerships and another on spreading and scaling innovation at a date to be confirmed. The board heard that the seminars provide an opportunity for members to discuss and explore key issues in more detail.

Members of the board were encouraged to suggest further topics that they would like to discuss in seminar format.

Housing Committee - Thursday 03 October 2024

The Housing Committee met to consider a number of reports relating to housing in the borough. The Committee heard a report on housing services activity, considered a proposal to award a new grounds maintenance contract for the borough’s housing estates, and received a report on the first quarter’s budget monitoring.

Housing Services Activity Update

The Committee considered a report detailing the work of the Housing Services team. The report included an update on the number of people in temporary accommodation and revealed that the number had increased by 55 since the previous month, with a particularly significant increase in the use of nightly paid accommodation.

The number of people in temporary accommodation (TA) has been a recurring theme in recent emails. You may recall from a previous email that temporary accommodation is a type of housing that is provided by local authorities to people who are homeless and have a priority need. TA can include a range of different types of accommodation, including hostels, bed and breakfasts, and self-contained flats.

As we discussed in a previous email, the provision of affordable housing is a significant issue in London, and has been a key focus of Sadiq Khan, the Mayor of London, since he was first elected in 2016.

Grounds Maintenance Contract Award 2025

The committee approved the award of a new grounds maintenance contract to an unnamed bidder. The new contract will be for six years, with an option to extend for a further six years.

As we have seen in previous emails, the tendering process for council contracts can be quite complex, and it can sometimes take many months for a new contract to be agreed. In this instance, the contract is due to start in February 2025, suggesting that the process of selecting a new provider began many months ago.

Executive - Monday 30 September 2024

The Executive met this week and considered a number of recommendations from its sub-committees. The Executive approved a number of recommendations relating to the award of grants to local charities and the award of contracts for grounds maintenance and litter enforcement services.

The Executive also received a report on the Council's relationship with Enable Culture and Leisure and agreed to continue work on a plan to bring some services back in-house.

General Purposes Committee - Friday 04 October 2024

The General Purposes Committee met on Friday to consider two reports. The first concerned the next stage of the Democracy Review that was agreed earlier this year, while the second related to an independent review of the 2024 Putney Constituency General Election count.

Democracy Review

The Committee discussed a report setting out the next stage of the Council’s ongoing Democracy Review. This follows on from the recommendations of the LGA Corporate Peer Challenge in 2023, as well as the appointment of a new administration in May 2024.

“This is, in some ways, a unique opportunity to actually create a modern, transparent and publicly accessible decision-making system, which will actually make the council considerably more efficient and considerably more responsive to the needs of our residents. So it is, as far as I'm concerned, one of the most important pieces of work that this council is undertaking.” - Councillor Rex Osborne

The Council commissioned the Centre for Governance and Scrutiny (CfGS) to undertake the review. The report discussed by the Committee proposed that the next stage of the review should involve a series of workshops and one-to-one meetings with Councillors and officers to gather evidence and to develop potential solutions. The Committee also discussed the importance of engaging with the public and with staff during the review process.

“We need to make sure that, you know, we are, as a council, reaching out to the people that we need to reach out to. And I think, we need to be fairly open minded about it because it's probably the most difficult bit as well. And how do we meaningfully reach, reach residents, give them greater inclusion and access than perhaps they have now or feel they might have now. “ - Ian Parry, CfGS

Election Count Review

The Committee also considered the report of an independent review into the 2024 Putney Constituency General Election count.

“…as a council, we should not shy away from having an independent review, or in fact several independent reviews, of anything that we're concerned about. So I do think that it's part of a much more open approach that I'm trying to lead as a new administration.” - Councillor Rex Osborne

As we discussed in a previous email, the independent review was commissioned after a spreadsheet error resulted in a significant number of votes not being included in the declared results of the General Election in Putney Constituency. The error, which did not affect the result of the election, was identified by Fleur Anderson, the Labour MP for Putney, after she requested a breakdown of the results.

The review was conducted by Andrew Maughan, the Borough Solicitor of the London Borough of Camden. The report concluded that the error had occurred because the spreadsheet used to calculate the results had not been set up correctly, and that there had been insufficient checks and balances in place to prevent such an error from occurring.

The report made a number of recommendations for improvement, including that the council should consider how it resources elections in the future, that it should improve its training for staff involved in the counting of votes, and that it should take steps to promote transparency in the counting process.

Councillor Peter Graham raised concerns about the Electoral Commission’s guidance on the use of spreadsheets in elections.

“I mean, I think EROs [Electoral Registration Officers] have their own professional reasons for not wishing to be too rude about the Electoral Commission in public. I think between the lines, Mr. Moore was basically saying that the Electoral Commission guidance could be better. “ - Councillor Peter Graham

Mr Maughan agreed that this would be a sensible course of action for the Council to take.

Councillor Clare Lawless responded by criticising the Conservative Party’s response to the error, which included the issuing of a press release that was reported on in the national media.

“So one of those press releases also contained quotes from opposition councillors, which helped fuel the story. And I think one point of reflection, which I hope Councillor Graham will come towards, is that maybe instead of firing the gun, we should have taken a step back, understood some of the details behind it, and then we wouldn't get into scare tactics with people. ” - Councillor Clare Lawless

Councillor Graham responded that he had written to the council to ask why councillors had not been informed of the error sooner.

“What I did was write an email asking why on earth councillors hadn't been informed, including Councillor Lawless hadn't been informed, and why there was no press release from the council. “ - Councillor Peter Graham

The committee agreed to accept all of Mr Maughan’s recommendations and asked officers to prepare a response to the Electoral Commission setting out the council’s concerns about its guidance on the use of spreadsheets in elections.

This week in Wandsworth:

• The Planning Applications Committee refused permission for a development of the Glass Mill site in Battersea after recieving a report from the Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee that objected to the scheme.
• The Licensing Sub-Committee met on Wednesday but did not publish a transcript or agenda for their meeting.

Planning Applications Committee - 10 July 2024

This week’s meeting of the Planning Applications Committee approved two applications for relatively small-scale developments, one for a single-storey rear extension at 133 Elsenham Street and one for a replacement roof and the construction of a rear dormer window and roof lights at 4 Wimbledon Park Road.

However, the most significant decision of the meeting concerned an application for the redevelopment of the Glass Mill site at 1 Battersea Bridge Road which would have seen the construction of a new 23-storey office block.

The application had attracted objections from a number of residents and residents' groups, as well as from the Council’s own Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee. This is a trend we have seen in previous emails. As you may recall, last month, the Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee objected to a planning application that would have seen the demolition of an existing house and its replacement with a new six-storey block of flats on land adjacent to the existing Queenstown Road Cemetery.

In the case of the Glass Mill Site, the main concerns related to the scale and massing of the proposed development, its impact on the setting of a number of listed buildings, the loss of light to neighbouring properties, and the harm that the scheme would cause to the character and appearance of the conservation area.

Officers consider the proposal would result in less than substantial harm to the significance of a number of designated heritage assets and would also harm the character and appearance of the Conservation Area

The report of the Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee, which had been presented to the committee, had objected to the scheme on a number of grounds, including its impact on the setting of the Grade II* listed Battersea Power Station, its detrimental impact on views of the river, and the loss of a number of trees on the site.

The committee discussed the application at length, and ultimately voted to refuse planning permission, despite warnings from officers and the council’s legal advisor that their decision was likely to be successfully appealed. This is a recurring theme in our emails. As you may recall, last month the Planning Applications Committee voted to refuse planning permission for a development of 10 Old Brook Road, only for their decision to be overturned on appeal, with the planning inspector ruling that the council had behaved unreasonably and ordering them to pay costs.

In the case of the Glass Mill Site, the committee’s decision was motivated by a number of factors. Firstly, the committee was keen to ensure that the setting of a number of important heritage assets was protected. This included a number of listed buildings in the vicinity of the site, such as Battersea Power Station.

“I think we’ve got to be mindful of the setting of some really important heritage assets. And there’s quite a lot of them in this part of the borough. We’ve got the power station obviously, and we’ve got the railway bridge, which is Grade II listed. So it’s a really important area in terms of its setting and its heritage. And I don’t think this scheme does it justice.” - Councillor Jamie Coakley, Chair of the Planning Applications Committee

The committee was also concerned about the impact that the development would have on local residents, with many councillors arguing that the scheme would result in a loss of light to neighbouring properties.

“I know that we’ve got to make sure that we’re delivering homes in the borough, but we’ve also got to be mindful of the impact that those homes have on existing residents.” - Councillor Leonie Cooper

Finally, the committee was reluctant to approve a scheme that was so unpopular with local residents, with many councillors arguing that they had a duty to represent the views of their constituents.

“I think we’ve got to listen to our residents. And I think, in this case, the residents have made it very clear that they don’t want this development to go ahead. I think it’s important that we, as councillors, listen to their concerns.” - Councillor Tony Belton

This concludes our summary of the Planning Applications Committee. We will continue to keep you updated on the Council’s activities in our weekly emails.

Licensing Sub-Committee - 28 August 2024

The Licensing Sub-Committee met on Wednesday 28 August 2024, but did not publish a transcript or agenda for the meeting. This is not unusual, as the Licensing Sub-Committee often deals with sensitive matters, such as applications for licenses to sell alcohol.

As you may recall from a previous email, Licensing Sub-Committees are responsible for determining applications for new and varied premises licenses under the terms of the Licensing Act 2003. The Act came into force in 2005 and is designed to promote the four licensing objectives:

1. The prevention of crime and disorder
2. Public safety
3. The prevention of public nuisance
4. The protection of children from harm

We will keep you updated on any decisions made at this meeting as they become available.

This week in Wandsworth:

• The Planning Applications Committee refused an application for the development of land next to Queenstown Road Cemetery.
• The Audit Committee received a report on the Council's risk management strategy.
• The Licensing Sub-Committee met on Wednesday but did not publish a transcript for their meeting.

Planning Applications Committee - 19 June 2024

This week’s meeting of the Planning Applications Committee refused an application for the development of land adjacent to Queenstown Road Cemetery. The site, which is located in the Queenstown Road Conservation Area, currently contains a single dwelling house, which the applicant proposed to demolish and replace with a new 6 storey block of 9 flats.

The application had attracted a number of objections, including from the Battersea Society, the Clapham Junction Action Group and the Council’s own Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee.

The committee ultimately decided to refuse the application on the grounds that the development would be overbearing, that it would harm the character and appearance of the conservation area, and that it would cause harm to a number of trees on the site.

The trees along the northern and western boundaries of the site make a positive contribution to the character and appearance of the Conservation Area and the proposed development would result in their loss.

This is a trend we have seen in previous emails. You may recall that back in April, the Planning Applications Committee voted to refuse permission for a development in Putney, citing the impact of the proposed development on a number of trees on the site.

Audit Committee - 21 June 2024

The Audit Committee met this week to review the council's risk management strategy. The committee discussed a number of issues, including the council’s approach to cyber security and fraud.

Licensing Sub-Committee - 1

This week in Wandsworth:

• The Licensing Sub-Committee met on Wednesday but did not publish a transcript or agenda for their meeting.
• The Grants Sub-Committee decided which organisations should receive grants from the Voluntary Sector Cost of Living Grant Fund and Round 27 of the Wandsworth Grant Fund.
• The Borough Residents' Forum was scheduled to receive a report on the Housing Revenue Account Business Plan Update, the Grounds Maintenance Contract, and the roll-out of food waste collections on housing estates.
• The Passenger Transport Liaison Group was scheduled to receive an update on accessibility improvements at train stations in the borough, discuss the performance of several bus routes, and receive a report on crime figures.

Licensing Sub-Committee - 25 September 2024

The Licensing Sub-Committee met this week, but no transcript or agenda was published for the meeting. This is not unusual, as the Licensing Sub-Committee frequently considers matters relating to specific businesses, many of which are of a commercially sensitive nature. As you may recall from a previous email, Licensing Sub-Committees are responsible for determining applications for new and varied premises licenses under the terms of the Licensing Act 2003.

We will continue to monitor the Council’s activities and will provide a summary of any decisions made at this meeting as they become available.

Grants Sub-Committee - 26 September 2024

The Grants Sub-Committee is a committee of the council that is responsible for making recommendations about the allocation of grant funding to voluntary and community organisations. As you may recall from a previous email, the council runs a number of different grant programmes, each of which has its own specific criteria and application process.

This week the Grants Sub-Committee met to consider applications to the Voluntary Sector Cost of Living Grant Fund, Round 1 and to Round 27 of the Wandsworth Grant Fund.

Voluntary Sector Cost of Living Grant Fund, Round 1

As you may recall from previous emails, one of the key functions of scrutiny committees is to hold the executive to account. This often involves questioning officers about the decisions they have made and the way that council services are being run. This week’s Grants Sub-Committee saw Councillor Lindsay Hedges (Ballinwood), question officers about the fairness and transparency of the grants process, asking why a significant number of applications were unsuccessful and whether the council could provide more support to organisations to help them navigate the process.

Councillor Hedges was particularly concerned about the number of grants being awarded to Katherine Low Settlement, suggesting that the organisation was being awarded a disproportionate amount of funding. In response, officers explained that while they were able to track the amount of funding awarded through the grants process, they did not currently track other sources of funding that organisations may be receiving from the council, such as through commissions or service level agreements. They also suggested that this information could be obtained by Councillors from the annual reports of the organisations concerned.

Councillor Hedges expressed disappointment that this information was not readily available, arguing that it was difficult to properly scrutinise the council’s spending without a clear understanding of how much funding each organisation receives. She requested that officers explore ways to improve the transparency of the process.

This suggests that Councillor Hedges takes her scrutiny role very seriously and that she is keen to ensure that grant funding is awarded fairly and transparently.

Wandsworth Grant Fund Round 27

The committee went on to consider applications to Round 27 of the Wandsworth Grant Fund. This is one of the Council’s longest-running grant schemes. The meeting’s agenda included a report that provided an update on the scheme and set out the criteria that officers had used to assess the applications that had been received.

You may recall from a previous email that one of the criteria that the committee uses when making decisions about grant funding relates to whether the proposed activity will benefit residents across the borough, or whether it will only benefit a smaller group. This week’s meeting saw this issue discussed in relation to an application from Board Primary School for funding to set up a Spanish club.

Officers explained that while the proposed Spanish club was a worthwhile project, they were concerned that it would only benefit pupils attending the school, rather than the wider community. Councillor Dan Hamilton suggested that if the school could demonstrate that the club would be open to children from other schools, or to the wider community, then the committee might be minded to look favourably on the application in future. This suggests that the committee is keen to ensure that grant funding provides value for money and that it benefits as many residents as possible.

The Committee also discussed an application from St Mary’s Church in Thamesfield for funding to install solar panels. Officers explained that while they supported the principle of the project, the church had not yet obtained planning permission for the works, or the necessary structural surveys. As a result, the committee decided to defer making a decision on the application.

This suggests that the committee is keen to ensure that grant funding is used for projects that are deliverable and that are likely to be successful. You may recall from previous emails that this is something that the committee has discussed before, most recently in relation to an application from the Kerry Gardens Community Growing Project.

This concludes our summary of the Grants Sub-Committee meeting. We will continue to monitor the council’s activities and will provide further updates in our weekly emails.

Borough Residents' Forum - 25 September 2024

The Borough Residents' Forum is a committee of the council that is responsible for representing the views of residents on a range of housing-related issues. The forum meets four times per year and receives reports from council officers on a variety of topics, including the council’s Housing Revenue Account, the maintenance of council housing stock and the management of the council’s housing waiting list.

This week the forum was scheduled to meet to consider a number of matters, including a report on the Housing Revenue Account Business Plan, the Grounds Maintenance contract and an update on the rollout of food waste collections on the borough’s housing estates. The meeting was also scheduled to receive an update on the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act and the council's Housing Asset Management Strategy.

Housing Revenue Account Business Plan Update

The Housing Revenue Account (HRA) is a ring-fenced account that local authorities use to manage their housing stock. This means that the money in the HRA can only be spent on housing services and cannot be used to fund other council services.

The HRA Business Plan sets out how the council intends to manage its housing assets over the next 30 years. The report pack for this week’s Borough Residents’ Forum included a draft of the updated plan for 2024/25. The updated plan included a forecast of income and expenditure, as well as details of the council’s plans to spend £563 million over the next four years on improvements to its housing stock.

You may recall from a previous email that last month the council agreed to consult residents of the Alton Estate on plans for a major regeneration project. This is part of a wider programme of regeneration that the council is undertaking, which includes plans to build 1,000 new council homes by 2027.

Grounds Maintenance Contract

The meeting was also scheduled to discuss the award of a new grounds maintenance contract. As we have discussed in previous emails, grounds maintenance contracts are often quite valuable. This is because they cover a wide range of services, including grass cutting, hedge trimming and litter picking. In the case of Wandsworth Council, the current contract covers 342 housing estates across the borough.

The report that was prepared for the meeting explained that the current contract is due to expire in February 2025 and that the council had been seeking a new provider for the service. It went on to explain that after a competitive tendering process, the council had selected a preferred bidder and was recommending that the contract be awarded to them.

Food waste roll out on housing estates

The meeting was also scheduled to receive an update on the rollout of food waste collections on the borough’s housing estates. You may recall from previous emails that food waste collections were first introduced in the borough in 2018. At that time, only a small number of properties were included in the scheme. Since then, the council has been gradually expanding the service and is now planning to roll it out to all of its housing estates. This is a significant undertaking, as it will involve providing thousands of residents with new bins and changing the way that waste is collected across the borough.

Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act

The minutes of the previous meeting of the forum, which was held on 10 July 2024, indicate that the meeting received a report on the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act. This Act, which came into force in June 2022, introduces a number of significant changes to the law relating to leasehold properties.

You may recall that a few weeks ago we discussed a proposal to redevelop the old Counterpoint site on the edge of the Savona Estate, which is just outside the borough boundary in Lambeth. That development is subject to something called the ‘Viability Assessment’ which seeks to determine how many ‘affordable’ homes the development should include. Affordable housing is a significant issue in London, and the definition of an ‘affordable’ home has been the subject of much debate. This is particularly relevant in the context of leasehold reform, because the Act includes provisions that are designed to make it easier for leaseholders to buy the freehold of their property, or to extend their lease. This is likely to have a significant impact on the property market, as it will give leaseholders greater control over their homes.

Housing Asset Management Strategy

The minutes also reveal that the 10 July meeting received a report on the council’s Housing Asset Management Strategy. This document sets out how the council will manage its housing stock over the long term, including how it will maintain its existing homes, build new homes and ensure that its homes are energy efficient. The minutes suggest that the meeting received a detailed presentation on the strategy, which covered a wide range of topics, including the council's plans to retrofit its homes to make them more energy efficient.

This concludes our summary of the Borough Residents’ Forum meeting. We will continue to monitor the council’s activities and will provide further updates in our weekly emails.

Passenger Transport Liaison Group - 26 September 2024

The Passenger Transport Liaison Group (PTLG) plays an important role in scrutinising transport provision across the borough. It is a forum for residents to raise concerns and for officers to update stakeholders on the progress of various transport initiatives and schemes. The PTLG meets four times a year and receives reports from TfL, Network Rail, and other transport providers on a wide range of matters, including the performance of bus and train services, planned engineering works and consultations on new transport schemes.

This week the PTLG was scheduled to meet to consider a wide range of issues affecting passenger transport in the borough. The meeting’s agenda included updates on station accessibility improvements, the performance of specific bus routes, the provision of bus services in Roehampton, the impact of closures of Clapham South Station, and a new bus driver facility. Crime figures were also scheduled to be presented for information.

Train Stations

As we have discussed in previous emails, one of the key functions of the PTLG is to scrutinise the performance of transport providers in the borough and to hold them to account for poor performance. You may recall that a previous meeting of the forum discussed the reasons for an increase in train cancellations and sought assurances from train operating companies that they were taking steps to improve the reliability of their services.

This week’s meeting was scheduled to include an update on train cancellations at Tooting Station, as well as updates on station improvement schemes at several other stations in the borough, including Wandsworth Town, Queenstown Road and Battersea Park. These updates are likely to be of interest to many residents, as they will provide an insight into the progress that is being made on these important projects.

Buses

This week’s meeting was also scheduled to discuss a range of matters relating to bus services in the borough, including updates on the performance of bus routes 14, 430, and 436 and an update on the extension of the 315 bus route into the Springfield Hospital development.

You may recall from a previous email that the council has been working to improve the environmental performance of bus services in the borough. This includes encouraging bus companies to switch to electric buses and to take steps to reduce emissions from their existing fleet. In recent years, the council has introduced a number of measures to improve air quality in the borough, including the implementation of an Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ).

Crime Figures

The meeting’s agenda also included an item on crime figures. As you may recall from a previous email, community safety is a significant concern for residents across the borough. In recent years, the council has invested heavily in community safety initiatives, including the installation of CCTV cameras and the recruitment of additional police officers.

You may also recall that the Health OSC recently discussed a proposal to make changes to the way the council implements the Community Trigger process following a number of high profile incidents of anti-social behaviour in Balham.

Minutes of the Previous Meeting

The meeting was also due to confirm the minutes of the previous PTLG meeting which was held on 14 March 2024. The minutes provide a good overview of the range of issues that the PTLG considers. They also show that the PTLG frequently requests that officers produce reports on specific issues and that it holds transport providers to account for poor performance.

This concludes our summary of the Passenger Transport Liaison Group meeting. We will continue to monitor the council’s activities and will provide further updates in our weekly emails.

This week in Wandsworth:

• The Environment Committee heard from several residents’ groups about proposed changes to the council's relationship with ENABLE leisure and culture, and also awarded two new contracts for grounds maintenance and litter enforcement.
• The Health Committee discussed the council's approach to the community trigger process, heard from St. George's Hospital about their performance, and reviewed spending on mental health services in the borough.
• The Richmond and Wandsworth Joint Staffing Committee met on Wednesday but did not publish a transcript of their meeting.
• The Planning Applications Committee granted planning permission for a rear extension at 4 Wimbledon Park Road, new flats to the west of Gideon Road, but refused permission for a development on Latchmere Road.

Environment Committee - 17 September 2024

The Environment Committee met and considered a range of items. The most significant discussion concerned a proposal to bring the management of the Council's trees, grounds maintenance contract, and strategic oversight of biodiversity in-house.

Revision to the Future Arrangements with ENABLE leisure and culture

The proposal to bring some of ENABLE’s services in house continues a trend that we have discussed in previous emails. You may recall that last month, the committee discussed a proposal to extend ENABLE’s contract. You may also recall that back in August, the council voted to adopt a new constitution. The constitution sets out the rules that govern how a council operates. One of the main purposes of the constitution is to ensure that decisions are made openly and transparently.

In the case of ENABLE, the decision to bring some of its services back in house was preceded by a period of consultation with residents’ groups. This is in line with the council’s commitment to engaging with residents and to working with them to develop plans that have their support, which we saw last month in relation to the council’s commitment to working with residents of the Alton Estate to develop a new regeneration plan.

The Environment Committee heard four deputations from Friends and Management Advisory Committee (MAC) groups across the borough concerning the proposal to bring the management of the Council's trees, grounds maintenance contract, and strategic oversight of biodiversity in-house. Friends groups and MACs play an important role in the management of the borough’s parks and open spaces, working with the council and ENABLE to ensure that these spaces are well-maintained and meet the needs of local communities.

The deputations broadly welcomed the proposal, expressing support for ENABLE’s work. They sought clarification, however, on how the changes would impact their work and how they would be able to communicate with the council in future. They also requested reassurance that resources for parks would not be reduced as a result of the changes.

Councillor Judy Gasser, Cabinet Member for Environment, responded to the deputations, emphasising that the Council valued ENABLE’s work and saw the proposed changes as a way to enhance the partnership and achieve greater strategic alignment. Councillor Gasser also told the committee that she had met with representatives from the friends groups to discuss the proposal in more detail.

During the subsequent debate, Councillor Tony Cook questioned the need for the changes, highlighting the success of ENABLE and the lack of evidence of problems with the current arrangements.

“I don't think I can remember in all the times I've been on this committee in one capacity or another four deputations. And I think it's a measure of the extreme concern that this paper has created. And there's a unanimity of message as well, isn't there, that people are basically saying. And it was my reaction to the paper as well was, well, what is the problem that we're trying to fix here? Because everybody agrees that ENABLE has basically worked very well.” - Councillor Tony Cook

Councillor Cook also challenged the lack of transparency about the proposal, citing a claim in the report that ENABLE had not always been sufficiently transparent.

“If you want to strengthen your relationship with ENABLE, I would suggest the way to go about it is not to write things like they have not been sufficiently transparent, which is in paragraph 3.3." - Councillor Tony Cook

Matthew Eadie, Director of Culture and Leisure, responded to Councillor Cook’s questions, stating that there had not been any failures by ENABLE, and that the proposed changes were designed to strengthen the council’s ability to set the strategic direction for parks and biodiversity. He also said that he would only be prepared to provide specific examples of where the current arrangements were not working in private.

The proposal was approved by the Committee, with Councillor Jamie Coakley, the committee chair, casting the deciding vote after the initial vote was tied.

The committee then moved on to consider the award of two contracts, one for grounds maintenance and one for litter enforcement. In both cases, the committee agreed to award the contracts to unnamed bidders. This is not unusual, as contracts are often awarded to bidders on the condition that they do not disclose commercially sensitive information, such as the value of the contract.

Health Committee - 18 September 2024

This week’s meeting of the Health Overview and Scrutiny Committee (OSC) discussed a number of topics, including the council’s response to several petitions about crime in Balham Ward, proposed changes to the community trigger process, an update on the performance of St. George’s Hospital, a proposal to purchase new homes for supported housing, and a report on the council’s spending on mental health services in the borough.

Balham Ward Petitions

As we have discussed in previous emails, one of the main functions of OSCs is to hold the Executive to account. They do this by scrutinizing the council’s policies, performance and budget. They can also make recommendations to the Executive about how the council can improve its services. The recommendations made by OSCs are not binding, but the Executive is required to give them serious consideration.

In this instance, the Health OSC was considering a response to four petitions signed by 120 residents of Balham Ward. The petitions had requested that the council do more to tackle crime in the ward.

Councillor Clare Hedges, the local councillor, spoke in support of the petitions, saying that she had received many complaints about crime from residents, particularly women who felt unsafe walking in the ward, especially after dark. Councillor Hedges also highlighted issues with rough sleeping and anti-social behaviour, particularly on Balham High Road and near Balham Library.

Councillor Peter Henderson, Cabinet Member for Community Safety, told the committee that the council was aware of the issues raised by the petitions and had already taken a number of steps to address them, including setting up a multi-agency task group to coordinate the response of the council, the police and other agencies. He also said that the council had doubled its community safety budget since the previous administration.

“…the current administration has doubled the resources in community safety from the previous administration, doubling the number of community safety officers and also employing an analyst who has been very good at enabling us to target our approach. And much of what has been done in Balham, frankly, we wouldn't have been able to do without that additional resource. And that additional resource was set out in a paper to this committee in September 23, a year ago. It's called the Community Safety Growth Report. And that set out a whole range of different initiatives which we have been engaged in, some of which are actually referred to specifically in this Balham report.” - Councillor Peter Henderson

The committee heard that, as a result of partnership working between the council and the police, the number of rough sleepers in the ward had been reduced, and that work was underway to address the issue of broken street lighting under Balham Bridge.

The committee ultimately decided to support the recommendations made in response to the petitions.

Community Trigger Review

The committee also discussed proposed changes to the way the council implements the Community Trigger process.

As we have discussed in previous emails, the Community Trigger is a statutory requirement set out in the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014. The Act is a piece of legislation that sets out a range of powers and tools that local authorities, police and other agencies can use to tackle anti-social behaviour.

The Community Trigger allows victims of persistent anti-social behaviour to request a multi-agency case review if they feel that the problem has not been dealt with adequately.

The committee heard that the council had reviewed its community trigger process following an Ombudsman complaint, a peer review by the Local Government Association and feedback from residents. The key changes to the process include the inclusion of all registered social landlords in the council's area in the community trigger panel, revision of the online application form, rephrasing of the definition of a qualifying complaint, and extension of the timescales for responses to applications and for convening panels.

Councillor Kim Caddy, a new member of the committee, raised concerns about the impact that the changes would have on victims, arguing that the revised process could be a bureaucratic nightmare, placing too much of an onus on the victim to pull together information about their case from different agencies. Councillor Caddy also suggested that the council could potentially raise the community trigger on a resident’s behalf in some circumstances.

“..this just essentially puts the onus entirely back on the victim to have to get all the data together, to have to fill in the forms. And I just predict strongly that many victims won't be bothered. And I wonder whether there is an opportunity for a third party agency such as the council to effectively sort of pull the ASB community trigger on behalf of the victim. “ - Councillor Kim Caddy

Kiran, from the Community Safety Service, responded to Councillor Caddy’s concerns, reassuring her that the process would not require residents to provide extensive data about their case and that victims did not have to gather this data themselves. She also confirmed that other agencies, such as the police, could initiate the community trigger process.

“So just in terms of the council raising the community trigger, my team needs to stay independent of that because we're obviously looking at it quite independently. The request that we've had, I mean, we will -- you know, there's not too much of an onus on the person to raise the trigger. They can give us as much information or as little information as they have. And the additional time that we've put in is for us to collect all that data. So if they say to us they've reported it to the police, that's sufficient, or they've reported it to their landlord or housing, that's sufficient. It's for my officers to collect and collate a lot of that data around reports. And that would also pick up, for example, if we've had reports elsewhere in the system.” - Kiran, Community Safety Service

The committee agreed to support the proposed changes to the community trigger process.

Planning Applications Committee - 19 September 2024

The Planning Applications Committee (PAC) is responsible for making decisions on planning applications. It is a quasi-judicial body, which means that it has to follow a strict set of rules and procedures when making its decisions. The committee is made up of councillors who are appointed by the full council. The committee usually meets once a month to consider planning applications. The committee's decisions are based on the council's planning policies, the views of local residents and businesses, and the advice of planning officers. The committee must make a decision within 8 weeks of receiving a valid planning application, although some applications require longer to be processed.

We have discussed several applications for planning permission in recent emails. You may recall from a previous email that back in July, the Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee objected to a proposal to redevelop the Glass Mill site at 1 Battersea Bridge Road. One of the main reasons for their objections related to the impact that the proposed development would have on a number of trees on the site. This suggests that the Council takes its responsibilities to protect trees seriously, something that we saw again this week.

This week’s meeting approved two applications, one for a rear extension at 4 Wimbledon Park Road and one for the construction of five new flats on land to the west of Gideon Road. The committee also refused permission for a mixed use development at 18 Latchmere Road, which would have seen the demolition of an existing nursery and its replacement with a new nursery and a block of 9 flats.

Bright Horizons Battersea Day Nursery and Pre-School

The proposal for the redevelopment of the Bright Horizons Battersea Day Nursery and Pre-School on Latchmere Road is what’s known as a mixed use development. As we have discussed in previous emails, these applications propose a combination of different uses, such as residential and commercial. In this instance, the applicant was seeking permission to demolish an existing nursery building and to build a new nursery and a block of nine flats on the site.

You may recall from a previous email that last month, the PAC approved an application to develop 9 houses and flats on a car parking space on Swaffield Road. That application attracted a great deal of discussion and resulted in a split vote. In the case of the Bright Horizons nursery, the committee decided to refuse the application, with five Councillors voting in favour of refusal and three against.

You may also recall that last month, we discussed how planning applications are often amended during the course of a PAC meeting, with the committee approving an application on the condition that the applicant agrees to make some changes to their proposals.

The main reason for refusing permission for the Bright Horizons scheme related to concerns that the proposed development would be overbearing and would negatively impact the living conditions of existing residents of neighbouring properties because of a loss of daylight and sunlight.

Councillor Jamie Coakley told the committee that he would have been prepared to support an application to simply replace the existing nursery building, but that he had concerns about the inclusion of the flats, which had resulted in the scheme being too large.

“I think if this application was just the nursery, I don't think I would have had any problems with it whatsoever. The nursery seems fine. There's some decent environmental improvements and it's a quite nice looking building, so I didn't find it. My issue is more the residential side. It feels like all of the areas of non-compliance in this paper are due to the developer trying to cram as many units as they can in such a small space. “ - Councillor Jamie Coakley

Several other members of the committee agreed, arguing that the applicant had been “greedy” in trying to squeeze too many flats into the scheme. Councillor Guy Humphries, the opposition speaker on the committee, suggested that a more “reasonable” approach would have seen the developer reduce the number of flats, thus making the scheme less bulky.

Duncan Moore, the committee's legal advisor, reminded the committee that it must provide strong and legally sound reasons for refusing an application, citing the case of a previous application for a development at 10 Old Brook Road where the council was forced to pay costs after the planning inspector concluded that a decision to refuse planning permission had been unreasonable.

“Could at this point I just highlight one of the appeals in the closed appeals, where there's been a cost award, and you may recall 10 Old Brook Road, where that was refused at committee against officer recommendation. That was found to have a cost award against it and unreasonably behaved by members because the inspector found that there wasn't a significant or a good enough reason to refuse it. So anything you come up with now, it has to not just say it doesn't comply with policy, because in that case they didn't have terraces and that was the fundamental reason for refusal. So it needs more than that. So on this case, we've got to identify what harm and the reasons for refusal and why it's unacceptable. So let me leave that with you through your thoughts.” - Duncan Moore

Nigel Grainger, the planning officer, also warned the committee that the reasons they had given for refusing the application were unlikely to succeed at appeal, arguing that while the scheme did result in some technical breaches of planning policy, these were not significant enough to warrant refusal.

Councillor Humphries suggested that the main reason for refusal should be the impact of the development on the outlook from the rear windows of neighbouring properties. After some discussion, the committee agreed to refuse the application on the grounds that the development would be overbearing and would harm the living conditions of neighbours because of the impact on daylight and sunlight.

Richmond and Wandsworth Joint Staffing Committee - 18 September 2024

The Richmond and Wandsworth Joint Staffing Committee met this week but did not publish a transcript of their meeting. This is not unusual, as the committee often deals with sensitive matters, such as staff pay and conditions.

We will continue to monitor the council’s activities and will report on any decisions made at this meeting as they become available.

This week in Wandsworth:

• The Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee considered plans to develop the old lodge on Tooting Bec Road into a cafe and comercial space, extend houses on Nepean Street, Bolingbroke Grove and Clapham Common Northside, and completely remodel an architecturally significant house on Blenheim Road, and received updates on the Clapham Junction Masterplan, the White Lion pub in Putney and Fensdown Lodge in Tooting.
• The Licensing Sub-Committee met on Wednesday but didn't publish a transcript of their meeting.

Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee - 10 September 2024

The Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee met and discussed a range of planning applications, ultimately deciding to support some, while objecting to others. The Committee also discussed the status of several ongoing projects, including the Clapham Junction Master Plan, the future of the White Lion pub in Putney and the Grade II listed Fedsdown Lodge in Tooting.

100 Tooting Bec Road

The Committee reviewed plans for the redevelopment of 100 Tooting Bec Road, the site of a locally listed former lodge and plant nursery. The Committee had previously approved plans to redevelop the site in 2012, but those plans were never enacted.

The current application proposes to restore the existing lodge and to construct several new buildings on the site. These would include a publicly accessible cafe, a garage, office and storage space for use by an undertakers.

The Committee welcomed the principle of bringing the site back into use and praised elements of the scheme that proposed the removal of an existing rear extension to the lodge. The Committee expressed a number of reservations about the scheme, however, arguing that the current plans do not provide enough detail about the design of the proposed buildings, or the materials to be used in their construction.

“...there's quite a lot not known. There's lots that we can discuss. And you've rightly said that we're aware that we've -- you know, we're mindful of the fact that things have been approved in the past and not acted on. ”

Particular concerns were raised about the proposed design of the cafe, which was felt to be too high. It was also suggested that the positioning of the cafe could be reconsidered and that the inclusion of a pitched roof was out of keeping with the design of the rest of the site.

“...the café, which is referred to on some of the drawings as a gym, which I think was a previous iteration, again, indication of the fact that this is probably not ready for presentation.”

94 Bolingbroke Grove

The Committee reviewed plans for the redevelopment and extension of 94 Bolingbroke Grove, a semi-detached house in the Wandsworth Common Conservation Area.

The application proposed the demolition and replacement of an existing side extension and the construction of a new three-storey side and rear extension.

Opinion on the application was divided, with some Committee members praising the design of the extension and its considered use of stock brick.

“…in the older course of events, I find exploitative developments a little offensive in principle, but my first impression on looking at this was that I very much liked it. And I fear as though I might be a dissenting voice with my colleagues to the left and the right. I think it's a very nicely considered extension to the existing building.”

Other Committee members, however, argued that the proposed extension, whilst well-designed, was too large for the plot and would negatively impact both the street scene and the character of the conservation area.

“…I worried not only about its appearance from this angle and from other angles on Wandsworth Common, but also the wraparound at the back, which is quite bulky and takes up a huge amount of space in the rear garden. And the rear gardens on these corners are a feature of the large buildings alongside Wandsworth Common on Bolingbroke Grove. ”

Ultimately the committee decided to object to the plans on the grounds of scale.

7 Blenheim Road

The Committee considered an application to redevelop and extend 7 Blenheim Road, a locally listed house that is considered to be a building of local architectural interest. The application proposed the construction of a new side extension, a new rear extension, a new porch and internal alterations to the existing building.

The Committee strongly objected to the application, arguing that the proposed works would amount to the effective demolition of the existing building, leaving only the front facade intact.

“…quite apart from the issues that Mr Sellers has raised, the internal remodeling of this building, as proposed, would really essentially amount to it becoming a facade job. ”

The Committee went on to argue that the proposed extensions would negatively impact the character of the conservation area and that the rear extension was out of keeping with the architectural character of the building.

“…this is an important house by an important architect, ER Robson, a series of villas, quite substantial villas. I'm surprised they want to make it bigger. And the proposals are incredibly destructive, as has already been said, involve largely the demolition of most of the structure and replaced by something, some sheet glass monstrosity. ”

The Committee also objected to plans to add a new porch and to remove two existing dummy windows, arguing that the removal of these original features would detract from the character of both the building and the streetscene.

Nepean House

The Committee discussed an application to extend Nepean House, a 1980s house in the Westmead Conservation Area. The application sought permission to add an extra storey to the existing house, to build a new single storey rear extension and to convert the existing garage into living space.

The Committee resolved to support the application, agreeing that the proposals would improve the appearance of the existing building, which was identified as being out of keeping with the rest of the Conservation Area.

“…the building doesn't make a particularly positive contribution to the conservation area as it stands. In fact, I think it's very distinctly an anomaly. And my view is that the proposed front elevation is a distinct improvement on what is there presently.”

64 Clapham Common Northside

The Committee considered a proposal to renovate and extend 64 Clapham Common Northside, a unique house located on Clapham Common. The house, thought to date from the 18th century, is unlisted but is recognised as being of local historical interest.

The application proposed a programme of renovation work to the existing house and the construction of several extensions, including a rear extension and a side extension above an existing outbuilding.

The Committee welcomed the applicant's commitment to renovating the building, but expressed a number of concerns about the designs that had been put forward.

“…on the whole, I'm relieved to see a scheme that actually retains as much of the building as this scheme does retain.”

The key concern related to the proposed height of the roof, which many Committee members felt would be out of keeping with the existing building.

“…the property already is fairly simple. Its characteristics can be summarized quite easily. And one of those characteristics is the pitch of the roof. And it just looks a bit strange to me to have now the chimney pots are going to be lower than the height of the roof there. Would a house have ever been built like that, that way, with the smoke going into it? I don't know. It just doesn't look right. ”

Concerns were also raised about the design of the proposed rear extension and the use of what was described as a ‘faux mansard’.

Update on the Clapham Junction Masterplan

The Committee discussed the Clapham Junction Masterplan, requesting an update on its progress.

“…I mentioned earlier on in the meeting what I'd heard listening in to PAC a couple of weeks ago about phase one of the Clapham Junction master plan process being completed. Would it be very helpful if we could get an early update on what the current position is in addition to the commonplace maps that are now on the website seeking people's views on what's good and what's less good about the area covered by the master plan as a whole?”

Update on the White Lion pub in Putney

The Committee sought clarification on the future of The White Lion pub in Putney. The pub, a prominent local landmark, had been empty for a number of years and had previously been identified as being a building at risk.

The Committee heard that the building's owners may be seeking to prevent its return to use as a pub or hotel, after it was claimed that the use of property guardians had resulted in the building gaining HMO¹ status. The Committee requested clarification from officers on the legal position relating to this.

“…I understand they've been told that because they put property guardians in the council now regards the building as an HMO and doesn't want to allow it to change to a hotel use. Even though the building was built as a hotel in the late 19th century and indeed replaced a previous hotel building.”

Update on Fensdown Lodge

The Committee received an update on the status of the Grade II listed Fensdown Lodge, a derelict and fire damaged former care home in Tooting.

The building, which is in a dilapidated condition, has been the subject of much discussion in recent years, with the council eager to see it brought back into use. The Committee had previously expressed concern about the lack of progress being made by the building's owners and had requested that the building be added to Historic England's register of buildings at risk.

The Committee was told that terms had now been agreed for the lease of the property and that a planning application for its redevelopment is expected to be submitted shortly.

“…We've got some good news. We've had an email from the property services, and they say now that the agreement for lease contains certain milestones, and it's been completed, and there are things the lessees must do, the primary one being that they have until the 22nd of November, I believe it is, to get in a planning application. ”

The Committee welcomed the news, but requested a further update in due course, to reassure themselves that the building was not being allowed to deteriorate further in the meantime.

“…one of the key concerns expressed at previous meetings has been about the security of the building and, you know, it's, whether it is actually undergoing sort of severe deterioration because of its current state. I mean, have there been any developments on that front?”

Licensing Sub-Committee - 11 September 2024

The Licensing Sub-Committee met this week but did not publish a transcript. This is not unusual, as the Licensing Sub-Committee often deals with sensitive matters, such as applications for licenses to sell alcohol.

We will keep you updated on any decisions made at this meeting as they become available.

The Licensing Sub-Committee met on Wednesday 28 August 2024 but did not publish a transcript of their meeting. The Planning Applications Committee met on Wednesday 21 August 2024 and approved several planning applications, including a proposal for a new intensive therapy unit at St. George's Hospital.

Planning Applications Committee - 21 August 2024

This week’s meeting of the Planning Applications Committee considered seven planning applications and an enforcement case. The committee approved applications for a new intensive therapy unit at St. George's Hospital, a temporary licence for a flower stall outside Clapham Junction Station, minor alterations to the Riverside Business Centre, the construction of 2 dormer windows at 23 & 25 Oxford Road, and new houses and flats on a car parking space on Swaffield Road. The committee also agreed to authorise enforcement action to return a basement flat at 310 Queenstown Road to its original use, and to confirm a Tree Preservation Order for an oak tree at the Roehampton Sports & Fitness Centre.

St. George’s Hospital

The application for a 2-3 storey intensive therapy unit located in the grounds of St. George’s Hospital was approved unanimously.

Flower Stall, Clapham Junction Station

The committee approved an application for a temporary 5-year licence for a flower stall outside Clapham Junction station on St. John’s Hill, but reduced it to 2 years on the motion of Councillor Aydin Dikerdem.

As we have discussed in previous emails, planning applications are often amended during the course of the meeting. It is not uncommon for the committee to approve an application, subject to the applicant agreeing to make some changes to their proposals. This is what happened in this case.

Riverside Business Centre

The committee approved an application for minor alterations to a development at Riverside Business Centre on Haldane Place.

This application is what’s known as a Section 73 application. These applications are used to vary the conditions attached to an existing planning permission. They do not allow changes to be made to the fundamental principles of the development that have already been approved, but are often used to make relatively minor changes to the design or layout of a scheme following the approval of a larger application. In this case, the developer was required to make a number of changes to the fire safety and accessibility arrangements for the development to reflect changes in building regulations since the original plans were approved.

23 & 25 Oxford Road

The committee approved an application for an extension to 23 & 25 Oxford Road, to build 2 dormer windows at the rear of the properties.

Car Parking Spaces West of 85 Swaffield Road

The committee approved an application to develop 9 houses and flats on a car parking space on Swaffield Road, with 4 votes to 2 and one abstention.

You may recall from a previous email that Wandsworth Labour’s 2022 manifesto pledged to give residents a vote on regeneration schemes that involve demolition.

“We will introduce a residents’ ballot on regeneration schemes that include demolition” - Wandsworth Labour manifesto 2022.

Although this application involves the loss of parking spaces, it does not involve the demolition of homes, so a ballot would not be required in this instance.

1 Jeptha Road

The committee approved an application to add a rear dormer and two front roof lights at a house on Jeptha Road.

310 Queenstown Road

The committee discussed an enforcement case relating to the conversion of a dwelling house into four self-contained flats at 310 Queenstown Road.

The owner of the property had converted the house into flats without planning permission. In these circumstances, the Council’s planning enforcement team can take action to require the owner to either apply for retrospective planning permission or return the property to its original state. In this case, the owner applied for a certificate of lawfulness but this was refused. As a result, the Council agreed to take enforcement action.

As we have discussed in previous emails, the provision of affordable housing is a key consideration for the Planning Applications Committee. It is also a significant issue for London as a whole. The Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, has set a target that 50% of all new homes built in London should be affordable.

Tree Preservation Order, Roehampton Sports and Fitness Centre

The committee unanimously agreed to confirm a Tree Preservation Order for an oak tree at Roehampton Sports and Fitness Centre on Laverstoke Gardens.

As you may recall from a previous email, the Council’s Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee objected to proposals to redevelop the Glass Mill site. One of the main reasons for their objections related to the impact that the proposed development would have on a number of trees on the site. This suggests that the Council takes its responsibilities to protect trees seriously.

This concludes our summary of this week’s Planning Applications Committee. We will continue to keep you updated on the Council’s activities in our weekly emails.

This week in Wandsworth:

• The Licensing Sub-Committee considered a license for Hazel's and Belgiardino, a restaurant on Moyser Road.
• The Council Constitution adopted a new version of the Wandsworth Council constitution.

Council Constitution - 14 August 2024

The Council Constitution meeting on Wednesday 14 August 2024 adopted a new version of the Wandsworth Council constitution. The Council Constitution is a document that sets out the rules governing how a Council operates. It sets out how decisions are made, what the Council's powers and duties are, and how residents can get involved in the Council's work.

The constitution is a well-written document that is worth a read if you'd like to understand better how the council works. In particular, the first few pages give a good introduction to the the framework for local governance, and there is an excellent pictorial overview of the structure of the council and how it operates on page 590 of the report that deserves viewing.

It is also worth noting that Wandsworth Council has a very close relationship with Richmond Council, sharing much of their staffing and decision making, whilst keeping constitutions and governance separate, which is well explained in the constitution.

The summary and explanation section of the constitution says that the purpose of the constitution is

to:

(i) enable the Council to provide clear leadership to the community in partnership with citizens, businesses and other organisations;

(ii) support the active involvement of citizens in the process of local authority decision making;

(iii) help Councillors represent their constituents more effectively;

(iv) enable decisions to be taken openly, efficiently and effectively;

(v) create a powerful and effective means of holding decision-makers to public account;

(vi) ensure that no one will review or scrutinise a decision in which they were directly involved;

(vii) ensure that those responsible for decision-making are clearly identifiable to local people and that they explain the reasons for decisions; and

(viii) provide a means of improving the delivery of services to the community.

The constitution sets out a number of rights for the citizens of Wandsworth. They include the right to vote at local elections, contact your local councillor, attend council meetings (except where confidential or exempt matters are being discussed), see reports and background papers, make complaints, inspect the council’s accounts, and to draw attention to suspicions of fraud.

Licensing Sub-Committee - 14 August 2024

The Licensing Sub-Committee met this week to determine an application for a new premises license from a restaurant at 95-97 Moyser Road. As you may recall from a previous email, applications for new and varied premises licenses are made under the terms of the Licensing Act 2003. This Act sets out four ‘licensing objectives’ which are the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm. Licensing applications must demonstrate how they will uphold these objectives if they are granted a license. Applications for premises licenses are decided by a Licensing Sub-Committee, which is made up of three councillors. The Sub-Committee must also consider any ‘representations’ that have been made in relation to the application. These representations can be from ‘responsible authorities’, such as the police, or from ‘interested parties’, which can include local residents, businesses and community groups.

In this case, representations were received from the Metropolitan police, who were concerned about the restaurant’s policies relating to the recording of security incidents, notices advising patrons to leave quietly, Welfare and Vulnerability Engagement (WAVE) training and Counter Terrorism Awareness training. Representations were also received from the council’s Environmental Services Officer who was concerned about noise levels and from the Trading Standards Officer, who wanted reassurance that the restaurant would be properly checking ID. Six local residents also made representations objecting to the application. They were concerned about noise from customers, late night opening hours, the potential for crime and disorder and the protection of children from harm.

Unfortunately, no transcript or video is available for the meeting so it is not possible to know what was said. The Sub-Committee will publish their decision within 5 working days.

The Licensing Sub-Committee met on Wednesday 31 July 2024 to discuss a premises license application from Taste of the Caribbean.

Licensing Sub-Committee - 31 July 2024

The Licensing Sub-Committee met to determine an application for a new premises license from the Taste of the Caribbean food and drink festival.

As you may recall from previous emails, licensing applications are made under the terms of the Licensing Act 2003. This Act sets out four ‘licensing objectives’, which are:

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

Licensing applications must demonstrate how they will uphold these objectives if they are granted a license.

Applications for premises licenses are decided by a Licensing Sub-Committee, which is made up of three councillors. The Sub-Committee must also consider any ‘representations’ that have been made in relation to the application. These representations can be from ‘responsible authorities’, such as the police, or from ‘interested parties’, which can include local residents, businesses and community groups.

This week’s meeting considered an application for the Taste of the Caribbean festival to be held in Wandsworth Park. The applicant was seeking permission to sell alcohol from 10am until 8pm and to provide live and recorded music between those times.

The meeting’s agenda included a report from the Council’s Licensing Manager, Caroline Sharkey. The report explained that the application had been advertised as required, and that this had resulted in an agreement with the Council’s Environmental Health team about how the festival would manage noise. The report also explained that a number of representations had been received.

You may recall from a previous email that three representations were received in relation to an application from Ground Coffee Society in Putney. In that case, all three representations were withdrawn following discussions between the applicant and the representors. In the case of the Taste of the Caribbean festival, the Metropolitan Police had initially made a representation, but this was withdrawn after the applicant agreed to a number of additional conditions being added to their license.

“The first representation from the responsible authority was from the police [who] raised concerns that granting the application in its current form would undermine the prevention of crime and disorder as licensing objective. The police requested extra conditions to be added to the license if it were to be granted. The applicant agreed the proposed conditions that the police put forward and consequently the police withdrew their representation.” - Caroline Sharkey, Licensing Manager

This suggests that the applicant had addressed the concerns of the police. In these cases, the Licensing Act 2003 requires the police to withdraw their representation.

“If the relevant licensing authority— (a) receives a representation from a relevant person, and (b) is satisfied that, as a result of steps agreed between the parties, the representation should be treated as withdrawn, the authority must, for the purposes of this Act, treat it as withdrawn.”

— Section 19 of the Licensing Act 2003

The Licensing Manager’s report also stated that one representation had been received from a local resident who had concerns about the potential for public nuisance and crime and disorder. However, the resident in question was unable to attend the meeting.

The Sub-Committee heard from Damien Mclean, who is the event manager for the festival. Mr Mclean told the Sub-Committee that the festival is a family-friendly event that has been running for four years, and is now held at 17 locations across London. Mr Mclean explained that they have a comprehensive event management plan in place, and that they have never had any serious incidents at any of their events.

The Sub-Committee sought clarification on a number of points. They asked how many people the event was expected to attract, with Mr Mclean explaining that they expected around 3,000 people to attend, but that the maximum capacity would be 4,999.

They also asked whether the Council’s Safety Advisory Group (SAG) had been consulted. The SAG brings together officers from different council departments and other agencies, such as the Metropolitan Police, to provide advice and guidance to event organizers on how to run safe and successful events. Ms Sharkey confirmed that the SAG had been consulted and that they had advised that a temporary license be issued for last year’s festival, with a view to a full application being made this year.

The Sub-Committee also sought clarification on whether the license could be revoked if there were problems with this year’s event. John Bishop, the meeting’s legal advisor, confirmed that the license could be reviewed at any time, and that this would certainly be an option if problems arose.

“..it's very important to remember that where you've got a premises license for an event like this with the sort of numbers involved um if there were to be problems at the event this year then obviously the uh license could be reviewed and therefore you wouldn't have the license going forward ad infinitum because you'd be able to review it and reconsider it” - John Bishop, Legal Advisor.

The Sub-Committee thanked Mr Mclean for attending the meeting and retired to consider their decision in private. Their decision will be published within five working days.

This week, Wandsworth Council held four meetings. The London Heliport Consultative Group discussed a number of topics, including helicopter movements and noise complaints. The Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee meeting on Tuesday 23 July 2024 objected to a proposal to redevelop the Glass Mill site at 1 Battersea Bridge Road, and will reconsider the Battersea Power Station application in September when revised plans have been published. The Executive meeting on Monday 22 July 2024 agreed to a number of significant spending commitments, including plans to acquire 56 new flats for sheltered accommodation in Springfield Village, and finally, the Council meeting on Wednesday 24 July 2024 did not publish a transcript.

Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee - 23 July 2024

Wandsworth Council’s Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee (CHAC) provides advice to the Planning Applications Committee (PAC) on planning applications that affect conservation areas¹ and listed buildings². The Committee is made up of local residents with expertise in architecture, planning and heritage.

This week’s CHAC meeting objected to two of the six applications that they considered. They also discussed an application for detailed approval for part of the Battersea Power Station development. The committee felt that the proposed design for the new buildings was not in keeping with the existing Gehry buildings and was more like “Gehry Lite” than full-blown Gehry. The applicant has agreed to make some revisions to the design, and the committee will consider the application again at their next meeting in September.

The committee also had a short discussion about the upcoming local listing consultation. As we discussed in a previous email, this consultation will give residents the opportunity to nominate buildings and sites that they think should be locally listed.

Executive - 22 July 2024

The Executive is the council's main decision-making body. It is made up of the Leader of the Council and the cabinet members. The Executive is responsible for setting the council's budget, developing policies, and making key decisions about the delivery of services.

This week's Executive meeting agreed to a number of significant spending commitments to increase the amount of council housing, support the voluntary and community sector, extend the provision of free school breakfasts, acquire new homes for supported housing and make changes to the way the council manages its finances. These decisions had all been previously debated by the Housing Overview and Scrutiny Committee and the Finance Overview and Scrutiny Committee on 17 July 2024, and the Executive accepted all of the recommendations from those meetings.

Overview and Scrutiny Committees

Overview and Scrutiny Committees (OSCs) are responsible for scrutinizing the work of the Executive and holding it to account. They can review the council’s policies, performance and budget. They can also make recommendations to the Executive about how the council can improve its services. The recommendations made by OSCs are not binding, but the Executive is required to give them serious consideration.

Supported Housing in Springfield Village

As we discussed in previous emails, there is a chronic shortage of supported housing in London. Supported housing is accommodation that is provided to people who need extra help to live independently. This can include people with disabilities, mental health problems or older people. As a result of this shortage, councils are forced to “spot purchase” accommodation, meaning that they have to pay the market rate for properties. This can be very expensive, and it often means that people are placed in accommodation that is far away from their families and communities.

The Executive’s decision this week to purchase 56 new flats in Springfield Village to provide much-needed sheltered accommodation will allow the council to reduce its reliance on expensive spot purchasing while ensuring that people who need support can live closer to their families.

Regeneration of the Alton Estate

The Alton Estate in Roehampton has been a subject of much discussion in recent years, as we have discussed in previous emails. In 2022, the council approved controversial plans to demolish part of the estate and build new homes. These plans attracted significant opposition from residents.

This week's Executive meeting confirmed that the Council will work with residents over the next two years to develop a new Alton Estate renewal plan. The new plan will increase the amount of council housing while reducing the number of council homes demolished. It will also aim to make improvements to shops on Ballast Road and Danbury Avenue. The Council has committed to holding a ballot of residents once the final plans have been developed.

This decision to develop a new plan in collaboration with residents is a significant change in approach. It reflects the Council’s commitment to listening to the views of residents and to working with them to develop plans that have their support.

Free School Breakfasts

The Executive has also agreed to expand the council's successful pilot project to increase the number of children receiving free school breakfasts.

The Magic Breakfast charity provides free breakfasts to children in schools in disadvantaged areas. The charity works in partnership with schools to provide a nutritious breakfast to children who would otherwise go without. As we discussed in a previous email, Wandsworth Council began working with Magic Breakfast last year to provide free breakfasts at 20 schools in the borough.

The pilot scheme saw more than 3,000 children receive breakfast at these schools, and the Executive has now agreed to expand the scheme to all 40 schools in the borough that would like to offer the scheme.

This is a significant investment in the health and wellbeing of children in Wandsworth. It is likely to have a positive impact on children's educational attainment and their long-term health outcomes.

London Heliport Consultative Group - 22 July 2024

The London Heliport Consultative Group provides a forum for local residents to discuss issues relating to the London Heliport in Battersea. The group meets quarterly and includes representatives from the heliport, the council, residents' associations and other interested parties.

The agenda for the meeting on 22 July included a number of items of interest, including a discussion of the group’s future, the appointment of new resident representatives and details of helicopter movements and noise complaints.

The Heliport’s operator is required, under the terms of its planning permission, to control the number of helicopter movements and to reduce noise pollution. The Consultative Group plays an important role in holding the operator to account and in ensuring that the heliport does not have a negative impact on the local community.

Council - 24 July 2024

A meeting of the full Council was held on Wednesday 24 July, but no transcript or video of the meeting has yet been published. As we have discussed in previous emails, the full Council is responsible for making key decisions about the council’s budget and policies. It also has the power to scrutinize the work of the Executive.

We will update you on the decisions made at this meeting in next week’s email.

The Wandsworth Council held 8 meetings this week. The Executive meeting on Monday 15 July 2024 did not publish a transcript. The Licensing Sub-Committee on Tuesday 16 July 2024 approved a new premises license for Ground Coffee Society at 79 Lower Richmond Road. The Licensing Committee on Tuesday 16 July 2024 approved for public consultation the Council’s draft Statement of Gambling Policy and Principles, and also approved the data streams and methodology for a borough-wide Cumulative Impact Assessment (CIA). The Housing Committee on Wednesday 17 July 2024 did not publish a transcript. The Council meeting on Wednesday 17 July 2024 did not publish a transcript. The Finance Committee on Wednesday 17 July 2024 approved a number of budget variations, adopted new viability assessment guidance for use by planning officers, agreed to continue the scheme that provides breakfast to primary school children and formally adopted the title of London Borough of Culture for 2025. The Planning Applications Committee on Thursday 18 July 2024 approved a number of planning applications, including a proposal for the demolition of a warehouse at 80-100 Gwynn Road in Battersea. And finally, the General Purposes Committee on Monday 15 July 2024 approved changes to the Council’s Standing Orders, including a proposal that would increase from 2 days to 5 days the amount of notice Councillors must give if they want to ask a question at a Council meeting.

The Alton Estate

The Housing Committee meeting on Wednesday 17 July 2024 considered the council’s latest proposals for the future of the Alton Estate in Roehampton. You may recall from a previous email that there were proposals for the estate in 2022 that attracted significant opposition from residents. The previous proposals, which were granted planning permission, included the demolition of 288 homes. The new proposal reduces the number of homes that would be demolished to 178.

The meeting’s agenda included a report pack that contained the details of the new plan. It included a number of recommendations, including that the Council formally rescind the 2022 planning permission and that a consultation is undertaken with residents to understand which of the proposed demolition options is preferred.

Wandsworth Council’s manifesto included a pledge that any regeneration schemes that involve the demolition of council homes would be subject to a ballot of the residents who would be affected by them.

“We will introduce a residents’ ballot on regeneration schemes that include demolition” - Wandsworth Labour manifesto 2022.

The report on the Alton Estate contained a proposal that the Council should undertake a ballot of residents to understand whether the proposals have their support.

The report pack also included details of the “early improvement plan”. This involves the provision of 40 new homes above the new Roehampton Community Hub, as well as improvements to the Alton Activity Centre and Downshire Field. You may recall that these proposals attracted an objection from Enable Leisure & Culture, who are the Council’s leisure provider and who run the Alton Activity Centre. They were concerned that the proposed works would negatively impact on the operation of the centre.

“…there are a number of aspects of the proposals that give Enable cause for concern. These include the impact on… operational space required for the delivery of the youth work, holiday playschemes and sports development activities” - Enable Leisure & Culture

You may also recall that a number of residents attended the Planning Applications Committee meeting on 11 June 2024 to voice their support for the Alton Activity Centre and their concerns about the impact that the development would have on it. The committee voted to approve the application.

Because no transcript is available for the Housing Committee meeting, it is not known whether these concerns were revisited.

The Alton Estate is not the only estate in the borough that is due to undergo significant change. As we discussed in a previous email, plans have also been approved for the Winstanley and York Road estate. The meeting’s agenda included a “gold” paper that updated the Committee on that regeneration. This paper was not published, and because the meeting did not include a published transcript, it is not known what details were provided about it.

Gwynn Road

The Planning Applications Committee meeting on 18 July 2024 approved an application for the demolition of an existing warehouse and its replacement with a part 20, 8-storey building. The application was for a site at 80-100 Gwynn Road, which is located next to Fred Wells Gardens in Battersea. The development will include 88 residential units, of which 25% will be designated as affordable housing.¹ Of the affordable housing units, 74% will be let at social rent and the remaining 26% will be provided as intermediate tenure.²

A site allocation contained within Wandsworth’s Local Plan³ had previously designated this site, alongside an adjacent site currently occupied by Safestore, for redevelopment. The local plan suggested that the two sites should be developed together, but the application for 80-100 Gwynn Road was submitted by Avanton as a standalone application.

The meeting’s agenda included a report that described the proposals for the site. The report highlighted that the proposed development had been designed to ensure that it did not negatively impact on the viability of the adjacent site, meaning that a development could still be brought forward by Safestore in the future.

The meeting’s transcript contains a discussion about whether a Compulsory Purchase Order (CPO)⁴ could be used to compel Safestore to sell their site to the Council.

“…is there still a power to compulsory purchase for planning reasons?” - Councillor Guy Humphries

“Yes…the council has CPO powers and it could look to exercise them” - Duncan Moore

The exchange suggests that the Council may consider using CPO powers to assemble the two sites if Safestore do not bring forward a development proposal of their own.

Access for All

The Finance Committee meeting on Wednesday 17 July 2024 included an item about a proposal to introduce an ‘Access for All’ scheme that would provide financial support to the borough’s poorest residents.

As we discussed in previous emails, Wandsworth Council raised council tax by the maximum amount permissible (4.99%) earlier this year. At the time, the Council leader, Councillor Simon Hogg, argued that the council tax rise was necessary to avoid cuts to services in the context of significant government funding reductions. However, this meeting’s report pack contained a proposal for a £4.85 million grant intended to fund the Access for All scheme. The report suggested that the money would be found without increasing council tax, leading Councillor Peter Graham to suggest that the recent council tax rise had not been necessary.

“So the leader of the council…described this £4.85 million as coming from sound financial management and the executive's work. Page 345 of our agenda shows that the actual net figure is not the £4.85 million but is under £800,000…and when considering that the SB, there's no windfall at all…what we have here is not a needs-based approach to determine the figure. The figure has been determined by what is being described as a windfall when it's no such thing.” - Councillor Peter Graham

The Council Leader responded that the money would be used to fund Britain’s best concessionary offer and that this was a deliberate policy decision to support the borough’s poorest residents.

“But despite those advantages, we also know, you know, remains divided, not everyone has access to those fantastic opportunities that make Wandsworth so special…So first, we're going to create Britain's best concessionary offer to help those disparities in initially leisure in sports and culture to make Wandsworth a fairer borough for all without adding a penny to that council tax.” - Councillor Simon Hogg

It is worth noting that Wandsworth Council has one of the lowest rates of council tax in the country. The decision to fund this scheme is a significant departure from the Council’s previous position and will be welcomed by those residents who will benefit from it.

Questions at Council Meetings

As we discussed in a previous email, the General Purposes Committee is responsible for reviewing Wandsworth Council’s constitution. This week, the committee met to consider a number of proposed changes to the way the Council is run. This included a proposal that would change the amount of notice that Councillors must give if they want to ask a question at a full council meeting.

Currently, Councillors who want to ask a question at a council meeting must submit their question at least 2 working days before the meeting. This week’s proposals would change that period to 5 days.

Councillor Sara Apps, the Chief Whip, argued that the change was necessary because the current deadline “is unreasonable” and that extending it would give the council more time to prepare answers. She said that Wandsworth’s current deadline is much more generous than many other councils.

“We're altering from two working days to five working days, which is still extremely generous and balances the needs of the opposition to that of the majority party. I suspect that one of the areas where opposition members may wish to have reassurance is on making changes to the constitution, which will involve them and their active participation and input into the changes being made.” - Councillor Sara Apps

Councillor Peter Graham argued that the change would prevent opposition Councillors from asking questions about items that have been discussed at Overview and Scrutiny Committee meetings (OSCs) if those meetings fall within the five-day notice period.

“The question is that…moving to a five-day period from the current two-day period will under our current timelines for committee cycles mean that questions, some questions will have to be put that are relevant to a certain area before that committee has met in that cycle.” - Councillor Peter Graham

Councillor Graham proposed an amendment to the proposals that would mean that the 5 day deadline would apply in all circumstances except where the relevant OSC had met within the previous week. In these cases, the deadline would remain as Friday morning. The amendment was rejected.

Ground Coffee Society

The Licensing Sub-Committee approved an application for a new premises license for Ground Coffee Society at 79 Lower Richmond Road. This business is a coffee shop that does not currently have a license to sell alcohol.

The report pack, prepared by council officers ahead of the meeting, contained details of the application and outlined a number of representations that had been made. The Met Police, Trading Standards and Environmental Health all initially raised objections to the application but withdrew them following discussions with the applicant.

“The first representation from the responsible authority was from the police whom all raised concerns that granting the application in its current form would undermine the prevention of crime and disorder as licensing objective. The police requested extra conditions to be added to the license if it were to be granted. The applicant agreed the proposed conditions that the police put forward and consequently the police withdrew their representation.” - Caroline Sharkey, Licensing Manager

Fourteen local residents also made representations, outlining their concerns about the potential impact of the proposals on their neighborhood. They raised concerns about noise from customers, litter and anti-social behavior. One local business owner also submitted a representation in support of the application.

“The application and the concerns were raised relating to public nuisance being undermined if this license were to be granted. In particular, noise from customers in the residential areas, customers dropping litter bottle caps on the streets, in residents beans, sand from leakage from the premises, especially in the garden which has a reductible roof.” - Caroline Sharkey, Licensing Manager

The Sub-Committee voted to approve the application. The decision notice and the minutes of the meeting have not yet been published, so it is not known what conditions were attached to the license or what amendments the applicant made to their proposals during the meeting.

Cumulative Impact Assessment

The Licensing Committee approved for public consultation the Council’s draft Statement of Gambling Policy and Principles. As we discussed in a previous email, the Gambling Act 2005 requires each local authority to publish a statement every three years that describes how it intends to apply its powers to regulate gambling within its area. The Act also requires each local authority to consider whether they will pass a ‘No Casino Resolution’ which, if adopted, would effectively ban any new casinos from opening in their borough. Wandsworth Council’s existing policy includes a no casino resolution, and the committee voted to retain it.

The Licensing Committee also approved the methodology for a borough-wide Cumulative Impact Assessment (CIA).⁵ This is a study that is carried out by a local authority to understand whether the number of licensed premises in an area is causing problems with crime and disorder, public safety, public nuisance or the protection of children from harm. These are known as the ‘licensing objectives’.

The report pack for the meeting set out a number of data streams that the Council might use to understand the impact of licensed premises. They included:

• Violence Against the Person data collected by the Metropolitan Police Service
• Assaults and Alcohol related ambulance callout data from the London Ambulance Service.
• Environmental Health Noise Complaints collected by the Council
• The Council’s annual resident’s survey and community safety survey

The committee approved all of the proposed data streams.

Wandsworth Council’s Statement of Licensing Policy currently states:

“The Council does not currently have a Cumulative Impact Policy in place for any area within the borough.” - Wandsworth Statement of Licensing Policy 2023-2026.

However, the Licensing Committee meeting this week suggests that the Council may introduce such a policy, depending on the results of the CIA. The meeting’s report pack suggests that the Council will be able to adopt a policy for the whole borough or for specific parts of it, depending on the findings of the assessment.

“…we will go away, gather the evidence for each ward within the borough and we will be able to collect information that we've listed in the report and then we will put it before you. We might probably through looking at the data sets, we might probably come up with an area, but ultimately it will be up to the committee to make that final decision at the next meeting in October.” - Caroline Sharkey, Licensing Manager

The report pack also suggests that a Cumulative Impact Policy will only apply to new license applications and not to existing licenses.

If the Council decides to adopt a Cumulative Impact Policy based on the findings of the assessment, they will be required to consult with residents and businesses before formally adopting it.

This week, Wandsworth Council held three meetings, all on Wednesday 10 July 2024. The Audit Committee considered the Council's accounts and risk management arrangements, the Housing Committee met but did not publish a transcript or summary of their meeting, and the Borough Residents' Forum considered the council’s new Housing Asset Management Strategy and heard from leaseholders on the Putney Vale estate.

Borough Residents’ Forum

The most significant discussion at this meeting of the Borough Residents’ Forum was about fire safety. Residents of the Putney Vale Estate attended the meeting and spoke about their experiences in the seven years since the Grenfell Tower fire.

Leaseholders told the forum that they were concerned about the lack of progress in addressing fire safety defects on their estate.

It's now seven years since Grenfell and we're still waiting for the council to make our homes safe

In response to residents, a council officer said that they understood the desire to be kept informed about the progress of fire safety works, and explained the steps that the council was taking to improve its communication with residents.

This is not the first time that Wandsworth Council has faced criticism for its handling of fire safety works. In 2022, the Housing Ombudsman found that the council had failed to meet its statutory obligations to assess fire safety risks in its housing stock¹. The Ombudsman also found that the council had not been transparent with residents about the progress of fire safety works.

This week's Borough Residents’ Forum meeting suggests that residents’ concerns about fire safety at Putney Vale are not being adequately addressed. It is essential for the council to take steps to improve communication with residents and to ensure that fire safety works are carried out promptly and effectively.

Audit Committee

The Audit Committee meeting considered a number of important topics relating to the Council's Finances.

External Audit 2022-23

You may recall from a previous email that there have been significant delays in the auditing of local authority accounts across the country. This is partly due to the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, which led to a backlog of work for auditors. As a result, Wandsworth Council’s auditors, EY, were unable to complete the audit of the Council’s 2022-23 accounts by the statutory deadline. The Committee heard that EY would therefore be issuing a ‘disclaimer of opinion’ on those accounts.

Risk Management and AI

The Committee also discussed the Council’s risk management and governance arrangements for the year 2023-24. In particular, they raised concerns about the inclusion of AI as a strategic risk on the Council’s risk register.

The Council’s Assistant Director of Finance, Paul Gilotti, told the Committee that AI had been added as a strategic risk because of the potential for it to be used maliciously. He said that the Council would be reviewing its approach to AI once the new Chief Digital and Information Officer was in post.

Councillor Hedges welcomed the inclusion of AI on the risk register:

My point actually is more around ... glad to see we've got fraud and cyber on there and actually that AI has now made it to the to the to the deck so I'm pleased to see that - Councillor Hedges

Councillor Hedges is right to highlight the importance of the Council taking the risks posed by AI seriously. AI is a powerful technology with the potential to revolutionize many aspects of our lives. However, like all powerful technologies, it can also be misused. It is essential that the Council has a clear understanding of the risks posed by AI and that it puts in place appropriate safeguards to mitigate those risks.

Contract Management System

The Committee also raised concerns about delays to the implementation of the Council’s new contract management system. This system, which has been in development for several years, is intended to improve the Council’s management of its contracts and to ensure that it is getting value for money from its suppliers.

Mr. Gilotti told the Committee that the system was “work in progress” but that he expected it to be fully implemented by the end of the financial year. Councillor Critchard said that she was “anxious” about the delays to the implementation of the system:

that sounds that makes me feel a bit anxious I don't know whether that's the right feeling about it but given that contract management is obviously an area where we can in there ought to be some financing contracts properly would give us a financial edge it would worry me that it's we've identified this is a problem like two years a year and a half two years ago but it still looks like it's going to be another year before in a position to start using this properly - Councillor Critchard

Councillor Critchard is right to be concerned about the delays to the implementation of the new contract management system. The Council has a duty to ensure that it is getting value for money from its contracts and that its suppliers are meeting their obligations.

Outstanding Internal Audit Recommendations

Finally, the Committee raised concerns about a number of outstanding internal audit recommendations. Mr Gilotti explained that some of these recommendations were complex and were taking longer to implement than originally anticipated.

Councillor Critchard asked for an update on an outstanding recommendation relating to storage of records:

Our storage of records the first item that recommended due date has been shifted again, so it was the first recommended due date was end of 2022 and it's been shifted because I looked at last year's are they actually going to make the date? It's one of our teams we really ought to be getting the documents sorted - Councillor Critchard

Andrew Hamilton, Head of the Shared Audit Service, responded that money had been found to pay for a resource to complete the work and that it was expected to be complete soon. He said that he would speak to the Monitoring Officer to find out what risks were posed by the delay, and whether the original deadline was still realistic.

and if not maybe he could come along to the meeting and explain that to you. - Andrew Hamilton

This exchange demonstrates how the Audit Committee can hold council officers to account. By asking detailed questions about the progress of internal audit recommendations, the Committee can help to ensure that the Council is addressing areas of weakness in its governance and risk management arrangements.

Housing Committee

The Housing Committee met but did not publish a transcript of the meeting.

This week, the Wandsworth Council held four meetings: the Transport Committee on Tuesday 02 July 2024, the Licensing Sub-Committee on Wednesday 03 July 2024, the Borough Residents' Forum on Wednesday 03 July 2024, and the Wandsworth Schools Forum on Monday 01 July 2024. Only the Wandsworth Schools Forum provided a transcript.

Wandsworth Schools Forum

The Wandsworth Schools Forum received a report on the Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG) budget, which is forecast to be overspent.

Dedicated Schools Grant (DSG)

The DSG is a grant that the government provides to local authorities to fund schools. The forum was told that Wandsworth's DSG is forecast to be overspent in the current financial year.

The overspend is mostly due to increased demand for support for pupils with special educational needs and disabilities (SEND). This echoes the findings of the recent review of Wandsworth's SEND services by IPSEA, which we discussed in a previous email. As you may recall, the review, which was commissioned by the council, found that there were a number of areas where the council’s SEND services could be improved.

In particular, the report to the Wandsworth Schools Forum highlighted the increasing cost of placing children in independent special schools:

The majority of the pressure…relates to the placement of children and young people with Education, Health and Care Plans in independent special schools and other non-maintained settings.

— Director of Children’s Services, Item 3. DSG Forecast 24.25 - July 24

The report noted that the threshold above which the council must seek approval for a placement in an independent special school has not risen in line with inflation:

The threshold for the High Needs Funding Panel has not increased in line with inflation for a number of years and there is now significant pressure on the Panel which is seeing a significant increase in the volume of cases.

— Item 3. DSG Forecast 24.25 - July 24

The forum noted the DSG Forecast and agreed to discuss it again at their next meeting in the autumn.

Other Meetings

No transcripts were available for the Transport Committee, Licensing Sub-Committee or Borough Residents' Forum meetings, so it is not known what was discussed.

This week, Wandsworth Council held four meetings, but only the Local Pension Board meeting on Tuesday, June 25, 2024 provided a transcript. Here are the key points and decisions made during that meeting:

Local Pension Board

The Local Pension Board discussed several important topics, including the annual reports on risk management and pension fund administration, as well as updates from the Joint Pensions Committee.

Risk Management

The Board reviewed the annual risk management report, which included both the risk register and the investment risk register. These documents are essential for identifying and mitigating potential risks to the pension fund.

Pension Fund Administration

The annual report on pension fund administration revealed some significant updates. Notably, the Government has delayed the implementation of the McCloud/Sargeant remedy, which affects how certain pension benefits are calculated. As a result, the Fund will not need to make lump sum payments in the 2024/25 fiscal year, as previously anticipated. Additionally, the Guaranteed Minimum Pension (GMP) reconciliation work has been completed two years ahead of the 2026 deadline¹.

The Government has announced a delay in the implementation of the McCloud/Sargeant remedy, which means that the Fund will not be required to pay out lump sum payments in 2024/25, as previously anticipated.

Joint Pensions Committee (JPC)

The Board also received minutes from the last meeting of the Joint Pensions Committee. Key discussions included:

• Climate Risk: The Committee reviewed the Council's draft Climate Change Strategy 2023-2030 and suggested several recommendations. They noted the Council's responses and requested a further update at the next meeting.
• Responsible Investment Policy: The Committee noted that the Fund’s investment managers, CCLA, had been reappointed for another five years. They requested an update on CCLA's performance at the next meeting.

Governance and Compliance

The Board also took note of the London Borough of Wandsworth Annual Governance Statement and the Internal Audit Review of General Code Compliance. These documents ensure that the council adheres to best practices in governance and compliance.

Other Meetings

The other meetings held this week did not provide transcripts or summaries, so specific details are unavailable:

• Environment Committee on Tuesday, June 25, 2024
• Richmond and Wandsworth Joint Staffing Committee on Wednesday, June 26, 2024
• Council Meeting on Thursday, June 27, 2024

Implications

The discussions and decisions made during the Local Pension Board meeting highlight the Council's ongoing commitment to managing risks and ensuring the sustainability of the pension fund. The delay in the McCloud/Sargeant remedy implementation provides some financial relief for the upcoming fiscal year, while the completion of GMP reconciliation ahead of schedule demonstrates effective administration.

As always, the implications of these decisions will be closely monitored to ensure they align with the community's best interests.

This week, the Wandsworth Council held four meetings, with the Planning Applications Committee on Tuesday, May 21, 2024 being the most impactful.

Planning Applications Committee

The primary focus was the establishment of a new rough sleeper hub in Wandsworth, the first of its kind in the borough. This hub aims to provide temporary accommodation with a 28-day target stay for rough sleepers. Michael Schirren Weller, a sleeper coordinator for Richmond and Wandsworth Councils, emphasized the collaborative efforts with the police and local residents to ensure security:

We have consulted with the police and attended the Safe Neighborhoods panel to involve local residents and ensure security. — Michael Schirren Weller

Councillor Mark Justin raised concerns about the lack of investigation into similar hubs in other boroughs. Mr. Worth acknowledged this shortfall and assured that they have since improved their engagement efforts by visiting other long-running schemes, such as those in Lambeth and Westminster, to adopt best practices.

Councillor Owens expressed concerns about the impact on a nearby nursery, to which Mr. Worth responded by stating that they have met with the nursery management and will ensure that the hub's opening hours do not conflict with the nursery's operations. Councillor Sheila Boswell suggested inviting local residents and businesses to visit the hub before it opens to reduce fear of the unknown.

The committee also discussed various planning applications, including a six-bedroom single dwelling with a basement on Granard Avenue. Councillor Govindia questioned whether the topography of the area was adequately reflected in the drawings and whether the basement conditions were safeguarded. Mr. Richards confirmed that the land's rise was indicated in the plans and that the basement would comply with building regulations.

Additionally, Mr. Calder provided updates on two applications called in by the Greater London Authority: the ALTEC application for the Lawn Tennis Association and the Springfield Hospital application. Councillor Cooper expressed her intention to attend both hearings as the assembly member for Merton and Wandsworth.

Council Meeting

The Council meeting on Wednesday, May 22, 2024 notes have not yet been summarized, so details on this meeting are currently unavailable.

Licensing Sub-Committee

The Licensing Sub-Committee meeting on Tuesday, May 21, 2024 did not have a video broadcast available, so specific details on the discussions and decisions made are not accessible at this time.

General Purposes Committee

The General Purposes Committee meeting on Wednesday, May 22, 2024 focused on political proportionality and allocations to committees. The main discussion revolved around ensuring the committee seats reflect the political balance of the council. Councillor Peter Graham raised concerns about the proposed allocation of seats on ordinary regulatory committees, suggesting adjustments to better reflect the political proportions.

An amendment was proposed by Councillor Graham to increase the size of the General Purposes Committee by one seat, which would be unallocated and could be occupied by Councillor Malcolm Grimston. This amendment was seconded by Councillor Tony Belton and agreed upon by the committee.

Implications

The establishment of the rough sleeper hub marks a significant step in addressing homelessness in Wandsworth. The council's approach to involving local residents and businesses aims to mitigate concerns and ensure community support. The discussions around political proportionality in the General Purposes Committee highlight ongoing efforts to maintain fair representation within the council's decision-making processes.

As always, the implications of these decisions will be closely monitored to ensure they align with the community's best interests.

This week, the Wandsworth Council held two significant meetings that could impact our community's landscape and governance.

The first, the Conservation and Heritage Advisory Committee meeting on Tuesday, May 7, 2024, focused on the delicate balance between development and preservation of heritage sites. A major point of contention was the use of Mount Clare as a security office. Concerns were raised about the building's underuse leading to potential deterioration:

An empty listed building is at risk of deteriorating, noted a committee member, emphasizing the need for a proposal that actively contributes to the preservation of the heritage site.

The committee also revisited the approval of the Francis Barber Pupil Referral Unit plans, which had been previously rejected due to design concerns. The revised plans, which included architectural adjustments, were approved, showcasing the committee's role in ensuring that new developments respect the community's historical and aesthetic values.

The second meeting, the Licensing Sub-Committee on Wednesday, May 8, 2024, deliberated on a new premises license for Battersea Food and Wine. The applicant, Vijay Tumar, proposed measures to mitigate potential public nuisances, which led to the police withdrawing their initial objections. The committee's decision to approve the license, contingent on effective management strategies, reflects an ongoing theme we've discussed: balancing business interests with community welfare.

We have negotiated reduced operating hours and strategies to discourage loitering, stated Tumar, highlighting efforts to integrate community concerns into business operations.

Both meetings underscore a recurring theme in council activities: the intricate balancing act between progress and preservation, business interests, and community welfare. These decisions not only reflect immediate changes but also set precedents for future council deliberations and community expectations. As always, the implications of these decisions will be closely monitored to ensure they align with the community's best interests.

This week, the Wandsworth Council focused on several critical issues affecting our community, including the closure of Christchurch Primary School, a topic we've discussed in previous communications. The decision was finalized during the Executive meeting on Monday, April 22, 2024, where the council addressed the school's unsustainable pupil numbers and financial viability.

The governors explained that over a period of about three years they have been trying to deal with this problem, but unfortunately they haven't really been able to increase pupil numbers to the extent that the school now has a 55% surplus places, explained Councillor Stott during the meeting.

The council's unanimous decision underscores the gravity of the situation and the considered approach taken to reach this conclusion. The implications for the community are significant, with plans to ensure all affected pupils are accommodated in nearby schools and commitments to assist with transitions such as new school uniforms.

In other council activities, the Planning Applications Committee on Wednesday, April 24, 2024, addressed multiple planning applications, including enforcement actions against unauthorized constructions and the approval of new school facilities. The discussions highlighted the council's ongoing efforts to balance development with community and environmental concerns.

One notable decision involved enforcement actions against unauthorized constructions at Palmer Crescent and platforms built over the River Wandel. The committee's decision to enforce removal underscores the council's commitment to maintaining the architectural integrity and environmental protection of our area.

The platforms encroach on the open space provided by the river, which is an important habitat corridor for bats, small mammals, and invertebrates, reported Mr. Craig Raybould, Planning Enforcement Team Manager.

Additionally, the committee approved the demolition and construction of a new science and dining block at Emmanuel School, reflecting the council's support for enhancing educational environments while also addressing concerns about environmental sustainability and public access to school facilities.

These decisions reflect the council's ongoing commitment to addressing the immediate needs of our community while also planning for its future sustainability and growth. As always, the implications of these decisions will be closely monitored to ensure they align with the community's best interests.

In a recent pivotal decision by Wandsworth Council, the closure of Christ Church, Church of England Primary School has been unanimously approved, effective August 31, 2024. This decision, deliberated in a meeting on April 18, 2024., underscores a significant shift in the educational landscape of our community, driven by dwindling pupil numbers and escalating financial deficits.

The closure comes after projections showed the school's financial deficit could reach £446,508 by the 2025/26 academic year. With enrolments declining, the school faced the stark reality of being unable to provide high-quality education due to reduced funding and fewer students. The council and school governors engaged in a detailed and transparent consultation process with the school community, which included making consultation documents available in 12 languages to ensure inclusivity.

It's with a very heavy heart that all parties from the school sit here, but as Director of Education, just to emphasize that none of us come into education to close schools, stated Ms. Roz Cordner, Diocese Director of Education, during the meeting.

The implications of this closure are profound. Students will need to be relocated, staff will face redundancies, and the future use of the school site, which the diocese has committed to using for educational or community purposes, remains a critical concern. Emotional support for affected families and staff is also a priority, with plans in place for a respectful closure that honors the school's legacy.

The council's decision highlights a broader issue that we've touched upon previously: the impact of falling pupil numbers across London schools. This isn't an isolated incident but part of a larger trend affecting educational institutions in urban areas, prompting a need for strategic planning and community engagement to manage these transitions effectively.