This meeting of Greenwich Council included a motion submitted by the Conservative opposition, and reports on the council’s Local Council Tax Support Scheme, the tax base for the financial year 2025-2026, and a report noting decisions on urgent matters that were made outside of a formal meeting.

Changes to Council Tax Support for Working Age Residents

The report pack includes a report that sets out a number of changes to the Local Council Tax Support Scheme in Royal Greenwich. These include reducing the maximum level of support available to working age residents from 100% to 80%. The report pack says that the change is being considered because the council is “facing unprecedented financial pressures due to the impact of increased demand and low levels of government funding.” It says that the change to the maximum level of support available would save the council £3.9m. It also proposes that the council increase the “earnings taper” for the scheme from 15% to 25%. The earnings taper determines how much support is reduced when a household's income increases, and a 25% taper means that a household's support will be reduced by 25p for every £1 of extra income they have. The document also says that the council wants to increase the non-dependant deduction¹ from £5 to £10 per week. There is currently an exemption for non-dependants who are in receipt of passported benefits² and are not in work, and the report pack says that the council is considering removing it. The report pack says that “the logic behind non-dependant deductions is it is assumed that other adults are making a financial contribution to the household and therefore this is reflected in the entitlement to means-tested benefits.”

The report also proposes that the council abolishes the Second Adult Rebate. The Second Adult Rebate is a provision within the scheme that allows a discount on council tax bills when other adults live in the household who are not the claimant or their partner, and who have a low income. The document proposes that the council accept notifications from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) of a claim for Universal Credit as a claim for Local Council Tax Support. The rationale for this proposal is that “it is common for residents to apply for UC and assume that support for council tax is included.” The report pack says that allowing the notifications to be used as claims would result in a “greater efficiency in applications being made to the scheme.” The document says that the changes would result in a saving to the council of £5.2m, which would be used to help the council maintain other services. To help mitigate the impact of the changes to the scheme, the report pack says the council wants to create a “Greenwich Supports Discretionary Council Tax Hardship Fund”. The report pack proposes that the administration of the Hardship Fund be delegated to Councillor Jackie Smith, the Cabinet Member for Inclusive Economy, Business, Skills and Greenwich Supports.

Council Tax Base 2025-2026

The document pack includes a report that sets out the proposed tax base for the 2025-2026 financial year. The report pack says that the tax base is “the number of Band D equivalent properties in a local authority’s area.” The document proposes that the council tax base for the year be set at 91,088.88. The document also proposes that the tax base for Gloucester Circus Garden Square, which is part of the borough, be set at 100.16. The report pack says that the council wants to reduce “the time before charging a Council Tax Premium to long-term empty homes (dwellings which have been unoccupied and substantially unfurnished), from 2 years to 12 months.” It says that the move would “bring them back into use as soon as possible to assist with housing demand” and could generate “additional council tax income of up to £325K for the Council.” The document pack says that the council wants to continue to offer a 100% council tax discount to all Royal Borough of Greenwich resident care leavers aged under 25. The report pack says that this discount was originally introduced in March 2017 “pursuant to the Council’s corporate priorities as a corporate parent”. The report pack says that the council wants to continue to offer a 100% discount to all of Royal Borough of Greenwich’s foster carers, and to all households in the Shared Lives scheme. The document says that this discount was originally introduced in January 2022 to “further extend the Council’s corporate parenting support to those among the most vulnerable in our community”. The report also says that the council is considering a proposal to increase council tax premiums on second homes, which would generate an estimated £750,000 in revenue.

Motion on Dockless Cycle Parking

The report pack includes a motion on the subject of dockless cycles that was submitted by Councillors Aidan Smith and Clare Burke-McDonald. The motion says that “dockless cycle hire companies must take responsibility for both their cycles and their riders.” The document says that the council has “received multiple and regular complaints about the location and position in which dockless cycles are” including cycles “being parked across pavements or footpaths, being left in the middle of pedestrian crossings, to being discarded outside entrances to shops and homes.” The motion goes on to say that “pedestrians and other road users have been inconvenienced and injured by carelessly parked dockless cycles.” The document calls on the council to work with the operators of dockless cycle hire schemes to create dedicated parking bays in the borough. It proposes that the council work with dockless cycle companies to ensure that all operators substantially increase the fines for antisocial use of their bikes “to a level which acts as an effective deterrent.” It calls on dockless cycle operators to provide the council with “full access to relevant data, including operational activities and fleet numbers in the borough”. The motion also proposes that dockless cycle companies implement a user-friendly way for people to report issues with their services and be required to react to them quickly “with a service-level agreement.” The document calls on the council to ban “dockless cycle hire companies from the borough who have not signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the council to enforce the use of mandatory parking bays by Summer 2025.” The motion proposes that the council work with the government to ensure that the council has “the enforcement regulatory powers that it needs to effectively regulate local dockless cycle hire.”

Protecting Leaseholders from Excessive Insurance and Remortgage Costs in Buildings Requiring Fire Remediation

A motion on this topic was submitted by Councillors Lade Hephzibah Olugbemi, Rachel Taggart-Ryan and Averil Lekau. The motion says that “it is imperative that the developers and owners of all buildings over 18m in need of fire remediation work must be able to proceed with the removal of unsafe material as quickly as possible, and leaseholders should be protected from the costs of this work being passed on through fees and charges.” The document says that “in many cases the risk [of fire] is too high for single insurers” to cover. In order to obtain cover leaseholders are forced to use multiple insurers, which “creates a layered effect and drives up the cost.” It says that “developers often rely on building regulations and standards that they meet during construction” while “insurers often apply more rigorous standards based on their risk models and the potential liability they face in the event of a claim.” The motion calls on the government to “act upon the findings of the Grenfell Inquiry”, to “bring forward a review how to better protect leaseholders from costs” and to “back a risk-pooling reinsurance scheme to help ensure quicker and more substantial reductions in the costs paid by leaseholders.” It says that “it is imperative that this review considers the findings from fires in Barking and Dagenham and determine what is acceptable on buildings, with a view of ruling out flammable materials.”

Economic Impact Assessment of Sale of Council Car Parks

The Conservative opposition submitted a motion about the sale of three council-owned car parks. The document pack says that the council’s Cabinet agreed to the sale of the Old Dover Road car park in Blackheath Standard, the Charlton Village car park in Charlton, and the Abery Street car park in Plumstead on 17 October 2024. The motion says that the decision to dispose of these three car parks “has been delegated to the Director of Regeneration, Enterprise and Skills”, and that the disposals will be implemented “in accordance with prevailing market conditions or other circumstances.” It says that “local business owners and residents” are concerned that “the sale of the car parks will negatively impact small businesses” and that they will reduce “the ability of older people and people with disabilities who currently use these car parks to access shops and other businesses nearby.” The document calls on the Leader and Cabinet Member for Planning, Estate Renewal and Development to “instruct officers to conduct an economic impact assessment on the sale of each car park”, and to “consult with the shops, cafes and other businesses who will be impacted by this decision”. It asks that the council “make best efforts to personally visit each business to discuss their views on the likely impact of the sale of the car park on their business.”

Decisions on Executive Functions Taken Under Urgency Procedures

A report in the document pack notes that the Director of Resources approved an urgent decision on 23 December 2024 to award a contract to Wavenet Limited. The document says that the five-year contract is for support and maintenance of the council's Avaya telephony system and for the implementation of new cloud-based elements of the system, and that it will cost a maximum of £1,500,000. The report says that the decision was made urgently because it had to be made before 31 December 2024 to secure a “financial saving of 37%” against the recommended retail price and that, although the decision had been listed in the council’s forward plan, “it was not possible to reach agreement with the supplier in sufficient time for the savings to be achieved” before the deadline. The report pack says that the Chief Executive agreed that “the decision proposed is reasonable and is to be treated as a matter of urgency because any delay likely to be caused by the call-in process would prejudice the public interest and the vital delivery of Council services”. It also notes that the Chair of Overview and Scrutiny agreed to the urgent decision.