Agenda and minutes
PDF 78 KBVenue: Town Hall, Peckham Road, London SE5 8UB. View directions
Contact: Tim Murtagh E-mail: tim.murtagh@southwark.gov.uk Tel: 020 7525 7187
| No. | Item |
|---|---|
|
Introduction and welcome by the Chair
Minutes: Councillor Abdul Mohamed welcomed councillors, officers and residents to the meeting. |
|
|
Apologies
Minutes: Apologies for absence were received by Councillors Columba Blango, Helen Morrissey and Paul Noblet.
|
|
|
Items of business the chair deems urgent
The chair to advise whether they have agreed to any items of urgent business being admitted to the agenda. Minutes: There were none. |
|
|
Minutes
To confirm as a correct record the minutes of the meeting held on 8 July 2011. Supporting documents: Minutes: RESOLVED:
1. That the open minutes of the meeting held on 8 July 2011 be agreed as a correct record of the meeting, and signed by the chair subject to the following additions:
Under Item 8, “Members looked at the sub-committee models and discussed the North-South and East-West possibilities. There was a discussion on other models.”
Under Item 9, Council Assembly 6 July – add at end: “Councillor Cleo Soanes had asked for the filming of council assemblies to be considered at future meetings.”
“In response to Councillor Soanes request, Stephen Douglass said that the filming of council assembly would be considered during the 22 September meeting of the Democracy Commission.”
2. That the closed notes of the meeting held on 8 July 2011 circulated to members only.” |
|
|
Role and Purpose of Community Councils
The role and functions of community councils.
Supporting documents: Minutes: Stephen Douglass introduced the report and said that Des Waters and Barbara Selby would explore this as part of item 6. |
|
|
Environment and Transport issues at Community Councils
Minutes: Des Waters introduced the environmental and cleaner, greener, safer roles of community councils making reference to page 6, item 5 of the main agenda.
Des Waters explained that action teams used to do a range of street auditing and report back results to community councils. The action teams had been stood down and there were no regular attending officers at meetings from the Environment and leisure department. Occasional briefings would take place on things such as waste management.
On the cleaner, greener, safer (CGS) programme, Des said that there was an error in the report and in 2009/10 there was an allocation. Funding of £1.8 million had been confirmed for 2012/13 and future years. Delivery of projects had improved year on year and the next programme would be rolled out in the final quarter of 2011. Officers were considering how to reformulate it to cover other objectives around local decision making.
Des Waters informed the commission that officers were currently briefing cabinet members on the way forward. The 2012/12 programme would be rolled out in the final quarter of 2011 to allow project delivery to be undertaken in quarters 2-4 of 2012/13. It was noted that the Democracy Commission’s timescale for reporting in December 2011 would potentially delay implementation of the 2012/13 programme.
Des Waters advised that officers were considering options for more devolved forms of local decision making as part of the localism agenda. The options included:
It was reported that some of these options would have resource implications.
Larger projects would be contracted out whilst some smaller schemes would be delivered through grants to local community groups. One challenge was to make the process more inclusive as CGS tended to get many of the same bidders each year.
Members considered the options of devolved decision making to individual Members at ward level. Some felt that the current system worked well at the moment and could not see a case to change the system unless sufficient reductions in costs could be made. Officers clarified that any such savings would not impact on the savings the Democracy Commission was seeking.
The CGS team used to have twelve project management officers delivering projects and it now had six. Des explained that the staff cost of about £300,000 would have to be met out of the £1.8 million. The challenge was to deliver more projects locally and reduce costs, however officers bring accountability and control of the programme. In summary Des Waters said a number of models were being looked at and the cabinet member would be sent a paper on this. The 2012/13 CGS model would be the same as in previous years but changes could be made for 2013/14.
Councillor Barrie Hargrove, Cabinet member for transport, environment and recycling, welcomed any ideas members of the commission may ... view the full minutes text for item 6. |
|
|
Engagement function of Community Councils
Paper for discussion Supporting documents: Minutes: Darryl Telles explained that community councils were encouraged to be more than a meeting. The workshops, themed meetings and films had developed interest and explored a broad range of topics. Darryl highlighted the case studies and attendance data.
Members felt that attendance at meetings varied according to the items for discussion along with choice of venue. Concerns were raised over why there were such variations in attendance.
Action: The reasons why some residents stop attending would be considered at the 22 September 2011 meeting of the Democracy Commission. |
|
|
Consultation with members and staff on Community Councils
Summary of focus groups Supporting documents: Minutes: Michael Cleere summarised the findings of the consultation. Consultation with the public would continue and be borough wide throughout August. The questionnaire was available on the website and in local libraries. |
|
|
Further information on Community Council budgets
Supporting documents: Minutes: Stephen Douglass introduced the three short papers that were a response to questions raised at the previous meeting of the Democracy Commission. |
|
|
Clarification on budget
Supporting documents: Minutes: The report looked at pension adjustments, team budget underspends and service level agreements.
Action: Councillor Michael Mitchell to clarify with the Finance Director the potential impact of the pension adjustments on the savings. |
|
|
Examples of costs per attendee
Supporting documents: Minutes: Ian Millichap explained that there were fixed and variable costs per meeting. Among those were van hire, public address, venues, publicity and sign language. The total costs range was approximately £1,300 to £2,000 per meeting. |
|
|
Estimated savings from reduced meetings
Supporting documents: Minutes: Members explored the impact of fewer meetings on matters including the cleaner, greener, safer programme and reviewing some decisions such as disabled parking bays from a timetabling perspective.
It was reported that reducing community council areas from 8 to 5 would save around £100,000. Reducing the amount of main meetings per year from 6 to 4 would save around £69,000. |
|
|
Plan for Democracy Commission item at September round of Community Councils
Paper to be presented at the meeting Supporting documents: Minutes: Stephen Douglass explained the plan for engaging residents in the community council review. There would be slots at each community council meeting in September at which Democracy Commission members would introduce the session. Both options, plenary and workshop, sought feedback from residents on what worked at community councils and what did not, as well as seeking ideas for suggested savings.
Members asked for the categories list to be looked at again. In particular, the wording of the reducing activities at meetings category could be more general.
Action: Ebony to circulate an amended category list for consideration. |
|
|
Public Comments
Opportunity for residents in attendance to comment on any matters raised during the meeting. Minutes: A resident asked if there was something available that informed what the Democracy Commission covered. Stephen Douglass explained there were terms of reference and a work programme. Those could be emailed and were available on the website.
Another resident valued the work undertaken by the CGS team and said that a range of approaches was needed to deliver projects. She supported the idea of increased involvement of residents. It was useful when officers attended so they could fully understand what local people wanted e.g. their traffic schemes. She added that people referred to as “usual suspects”, who attended meetings should be viewed as gateways to the community. |