To receive any questions from members of the public which have been submitted in advance of the meeting in accordance with the cabinet procedure rules. The deadline for the receipt of public questions is midnight Wednesday 25 October 2017.
Minutes:
1. Public Question from Mark Bacon
What is the council's expectations for extension of the London Bridge Quarter high-rise zone eastwards from Guys Hospital along St Thomas Street - and will planners ensure the historic character and welcoming nature of Bermondsey Street, with its maximum height of 5 storeys throughout, is respected and is not overshadowed?
Response by the Cabinet Member for Regeneration and New Homes
The New Southwark Plan sets out a vision for Bermondsey and London Bridge. This states that development should complement the distinct character of Bermondsey Street. Bermondsey Street is largely within the Bermondsey Street Conservation Area. As such, any redevelopment proposal within the conservation area or within the vicinity of the conservation area must conserve and enhance the significance of conservation areas taking into account their local character, appearance and positive characteristics published in Conservation Area Appraisals (as required in policy P17 – Conservation areas).
Development proposal for tall buildings would be assessed against the borough-wide tall buildings policy (P14 – Tall buildings). The New Southwark Plan identifies two potential development sites on St Thomas Street. The design and accessibility guidance for both sites states that taller buildings should be located towards the west of the site and not detract from the primacy of the Shard. Comprehensive mixed-use redevelopment of the sites could include taller buildings subject to consideration of impacts.
Supplemental question
Mark Bacon asked whether the planning committee will reference the New Southwark Plan in planning applications.
Councillor Mark Williams responded that any new planning applications have to be considered on their own merits and that developments must demonstrate significant benefits for the area. It was clear that landowners would need to work together in this regard and to comply with good design principles. The Southwark Plan would not be adopted until next year and the council would do all that it can to ensure that any development respects and provides real benefits for the area.
2. Public Question from Toby Eckersley
What are the current government-imposed housing revenue account (HRA) and other borrowing limits and how much leeway is there for Southwark to increase borrowings under each relevant limit?
Response by Cabinet Member for Finance, Modernisation and Performance
The Local Government Act 2003 requires the Authority to have regard to the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy’s Prudential Code for Capital Finance in Local Authorities 2011 when determining how much money it can afford to borrow. The objectives of the Prudential Code are to ensure, within a clear framework, that the capital investment plans of local authorities are affordable, prudent and sustainable, and that decisions are taken in accordance with good professional practice.
The two primary restrictions on local government borrowing are the:
· HRA Indebtedness Limit
· Authorised Limit for External Debt
Our headroom for borrowing, in accordance with the prudential code is set out below:
· £184m Housing Revenue purposes
· £637m for General Fund
Please see below for further information on this headroom.
HRA Indebtedness Limit
The maximum limit for HRA indebtedness for Southwark Council specified in the Department for Communities and Local Government’s ‘Limits on Indebtedness Determination 2012’ is £577m.
The level of HRA indebtedness is equal to the capital financing requirement (CFR) for the HRA. The CFR is the accumulated total of all capital expenditure that is not financed by any of the following
I. useable capital receipts
II. capital grants
III. contributions from the revenue budget
IV. third part contributions.
This is therefore a reflection of the council’s need to finance capital expenditure by borrowing or other long term liability arrangements.
The CFR for the HRA as at 31 March 2017 was £393m, leaving a headroom of £184m.
Authorised Limit
The Local Government Act 2003 requires a local authority to determine how much money it can afford to borrow. This is set out in the Prudential Code for Capital Finance in Local Authorities as the Authorised Limit.
Each year the council is required to determine the extent of external debt, beyond which would be unlikely to be sustainable. This is agreed by council assembly as part of the treasury management strategy.
For the financial year 2017-18 the authorised limit was set at £1,205m, the actual level of external borrowing, including other long term liabilities as at 31 March 2017 was £568m, leaving borrowing headroom of £637m for the council as a whole.
The cost of any borrowing is charged to the general fund or housing revenue account as appropriate, both of which are subject to ongoing funding reductions and cost pressures.
Therefore, capital plans for the council are carefully considered in order to maximise the benefit to service users whilst limiting any costs for council tax payers or housing tenants arising from these additional financing costs. As such the council seeks to maximise the use of alternative funding sources; such as capital grants, third part contributions such as section 106 receipts and internal borrowing.
Supplemental question
Toby Eckersley asked whether in view of the significant headroom within the housing revenue account, if the cabinet were intending to utilise this headroom in the near future.
Councillor Fiona Colley explained that cabinet receive regular monitoring reports and were next due to receive a report January 2018, which would reflect the current position. (This report was subsequently confirmed as going to cabinet February 2018.)
3. Public Question from Sue Plain
Does the leader or cabinet member believe the quality of facilities for workers in cleansing services impact on gender disproportion in that workforce? If so what plans has the council to improve bathroom and changing facilities? Will the “One Council” approach apply to all our employees in terms of facilities?
Response by the Cabinet Member for Finance, Modernisation and Performance
We do not know if there is a link between staff facilities and the gender profile of our workforce. Cleansing services historically, tended to be male dominated and the issue was recently discussed with management and TU’s exploring ways of encouraging more women to apply for vacancies in these service areas.
In terms of the current condition of welfare facilities across the borough, we are exploring options to improve our main depots and any work that flows from this will incorporate improvements to our smaller satellite mess rooms.
Supplemental question
Sue Plain asked whether it was possible for the council to do research in view of the lack of knowledge about the link between staff facilities and gender profile, and the impact on staff retention and recruitment.
Councillor Fiona Colley confirmed that she would be happy to ask for this research to be undertaken.