Agenda and minutes

Apologies  were received from Julie Clark.

Apologies were received from Nigel Davies, and Joanne Stowell attended as substitute.

Apologies were also received from Councillor Kathy Bance and Councillor Kevin Brooks attended as substitute.

There were no declarations of interest.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, questions to this Committee must be received in writing 4 working days before the date of the meeting.  Therefore please ensure questions are received by the Democratic Services Team by 5pm on Wednesday 28^th November.

There were no questions from Councillors or Members of the Public.

The Committee considered the minutes of the meeting of Public Protection and Enforcement PDS Committee held on 27^th September 2018.

RESOLVED that the minutes of the meeting held on 27^th September 2018 be agreed and signed as a correct record.

CSD18177

Members noted the Matters Arising report, and the progress that had been made regarding these matters since the previous meeting.

The Chairman suggested that Superintendent Knight update on matters arising relating to the police in the Police update.

It was agreed that the update due from the Head of Trading Standards and Community Safety in connection with property management operators and the redress scheme, would be looked into outside of the meeting by the Assistant Director for Public Protection.

RESOLVED that the matter relating to whether or not property management operators had to pay to join a redress scheme be investigated by the Assistant Director for Public Protection, and reported back to the Committee.   

The police update was provided by Superintendent Craig Knight. The Chairman referenced the fact that he had requested statistical information from Mr Knight in advance of the meeting. The Chairman acknowledged that in this case he had probably not submitted the request in good enough time. Nevertheless, the Superintendent had provided a Headline Performance document on the morning of the meeting, and this had been disseminated to the Committee.

Mr Knight addressed the matter that had arisen at the previous meeting concerning fleet vehicles. He explained that due to tighter controls on car emissions in central London, Bromley police had lost their newest fleet of vehicles and had got their old fleet of vehicles back. Bromley police were not getting new vehicles; they were bound by fleet management rules. They were also looking at trying to obtain local sponsorship for some vehicles.

A Member suggested that due to the size of the Bromley Borough, Bromley needed cars more than inner London, and perhaps this was an argument that could be used with Fleet Management. Mr Knight stated that the argument had been made. It was clarified that the vehicle exchange was undertaken on a one to one exchange basis.

The Chairman asked what would happen in central London (in the tighter emission control areas) if they required reinforcements from older vehicles. It was noted that in case of emergencies, the police would have no choice other than to use the older vehicles. The Chairman enquired what the timescale was to resolve the matter. Mr Knight responded that the debate was ongoing and that a detailed paper had been submitted concerning the Bromley fleet. A response was expected in March 2019. It was noted that police vehicles normally had a lifespan of three years, and were then replaced. 

A co-opted member enquired if Bromley police were short of vehicles. Mr Knight answered that it would be helpful if they could obtain 2/3 vehicles that could be dedicated to remoter areas. Bromley police were not lacking any response vehicles, what would be helpful was a few more vehicles that could be used by Safer Neighbourhood Teams. Conversations with potential sponsors were currently taking place. It was noted that vehicles pertaining to dog handlers fell under a different command. 

Mr Knight provided an update with respect to police office buildings in Bromley. The Committee was saddened to hear that buildings were going to be closed and leases were not going to be renewed. Alternatives were being looked at such as sharing premises with the LFB. There was going to be a trial at Purley Fire Station in February to see if operating out of fire stations was workable.  Sainsbury’s had offered to help with office space. The main police station in Bromley South would remain open.

A Member asked if a possible location could be community centres. Mr Knight said that all options would be looked at. Any premises used by the police would require 24/7 access and certain security measures would need  ...  view the full minutes text for item 39.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, questions to this Committee must be received in writing 4 working days before the date of the meeting.  Therefore please ensure questions are received by the Democratic Services Team by 5pm on Wednesday 28^th November.

There were no questions from Councillors or Members of the Public.

The Portfolio Holder update was provided by the Portfolio Holder for Public Protection and Enforcement—Councillor Kate Lymer.

She updated the Committee as follows:

·  The Crime Summit took place in September and was very successful with around 140 attendees. Presentations were given by BYC and by Neighbourhood Watch

·  She had attended a meeting of the ‘Gold’ Group, following the murder that had taken place in Penge

·  Monthly meetings were taking place to discuss remedies for the ongoing fly tipping problems in Star Lane

·  There had recently been a court hearing where LBB had applied for an extension to the injunction that had been obtained previously with regard to Travellers. The Hearing had been adjourned.

·  Because the Hearing was adjourned, an extension was granted in the interim.

·  The Safer Bromley News had just been published and was being distributed

·  The Portfolio Holder had travelled to Erith with the Communications Executive to witness the crushing of a van that had been involved in fly tipping.

·  The Portfolio Holder gave a brief update concerning an organisation called ‘Recycling Lives’ that was involved in finding employment for former prisoners after they had been released from prison. Their work had been very effective in reducing re-offending.

RESOLVED that the Portfolio Holder update is noted. 

The Portfolio Plan Six Month Performance Overview update was given by Sarah Foster.

The update was presented by using an A3 colour spreadsheet. Despite this, the print was still a bit small and the Chairman asked if larger type could be used in the future. Ms Foster agreed to spread the data over two pages next time.

The Committee was referred to item number 9 which was the number of unrated food premises that required inspection. This had changed from a Red to Amber risk which was good news for the Food Safety Team (FST). This was because the FSA (Food Standards Agency) had met with the FST and had advised them to shift the focus away from unrated premises. The target had therefore reduced down from 427 to 327. 

Ms Foster updated the Committee with respect to the matter of fly tipping. She said that the Fly Tipping Working Group had met three times this year, but was now being reinvigorated and would be meeting again the same week. The working group was developing a fly tipping action plan. The Legal Section had advised that it was ok for LBB to send out fly tipping warning letters in cases where fly tipping was not proven but suspected. Increases in vehicle stop and search were planned.

A Member raised concerns around the non-inspection of low risk premises, and pointed out that the situation could change over time. Karen Ryan from the Food Safety Team explained about the different ratings for food premises and the inspection regieme.

It was noted that although the official figures with respect to fly tipping had decreased, it was also the case that many cases of fly-tipping probably went unreported because it was such a common occurrence in certain areas like Star Lane. 

The Committee discussed the effectiveness (or otherwise) of using CCTV cameras. It was noted that in the Star Lane area this practice had not proved effective for various reasons including all of the bends in the road. Four cameras had recently been installed at Star Lane and they were all stolen. A Co-opted Member asked if LBB had enough enforcement officers and wondered why LBB was using temporary agency staff.

The Committee noted the update on Mentoring Relationships and was advised to contact Councillor Lymer if any further information was required. 

RESOLVED that the Portfolio Plan Performance Overview Report is noted.

FSD18089

The Budget Monitoring report had been drafted by Claire Martin—Head of Finance.

The report provided an update on the current budget monitoring position for 2018/19 for the Public Protection and Enforcement Portfolio, based on expenditure and activity levels up to 30^th September 2018. It showed an underspend of £118K.

The Committee was satisfied with the reasons for the underspend.

RESOLVED that the Portfolio Holder endorses the latest 2018/19 budget projection for the Public Protection and Enforcement Portfolio. 

The report was written by Joanne Stowell and presented by Karen Ryan. The Chairman praised the report for being good and comprehensive. A Member expressed concern at the lack of resourcing in the Food Safety Team. She asked what the position was with respect to recruiting permanent staff, or possibly using a graduate trainee, or even to train up a school leaver. She also asked if some of the work could be undertaken by someone who did not have the relevant qualifications.

Ms Stowell explained that some local authorities had nurtured their own staff and then they went on to leave. This was because they could earn more money doing agency work. The matter of ‘golden handcuffs’ was mentioned. A discussion took place around inspections relating to market stalls.

Ms Ryan elaborated on the matter of food poisoning as mentioned in the report. It was explained that these were single isolated outbreaks where the source of the potential food poisoning was difficult to determine, and so no prosecutions had taken place. 

RESOLVED that

1) The Portfolio Holder approves the Service Plan for the Food Safety Team.

2) The PDS Committee and the Portfolio Holder note the progress that had been made against the resubmitted Action Plan which had been agreed with the FSA. 

3) The PDS Committee and the Portfolio Holder note that the targets to reduce the backlog of inspections remained dependent on being able to recruit to the additional food safety posts.

ES18096

The report on Animal Licensing Legislation—Review of Fees, was presented by Steve Phillips—Lead Practitioner for the Licensing Team.

A new statutory instrument came into effect from 1^st October 2018. The new legislation introduced a new licensing framework and revised fee structure for a variety of activities involving animals. The report showed the revised fees that needed to be implemented, which were based upon the premise of cost recovery.

Members noted that the new fees were significantly higher, and it was feared that many small businesses would no longer be able to operate, and would have to close.

A Member asked if DEFRA would be informing people that they were responsible for the introduction of the increased fees. The answer to this was no. LBB would be undertaking a letter campaign so that the public understood that the fee structure had been introduced by DEFRA, and not by LBB.

A discussion took place regarding the City of London Vet Services and whether or not an alternative provider could be considered. Mr Phillips explained that the City of London Vet Services provided the complete package of services that was required, and that their rates were reasonable. Their service was good and they also supported the other London boroughs. 

RESOLVED that the report be noted and that the Portfolio Holder agree the revised fees as set out in Appendix 1 of the report—to be implemented from 1^st January 2019.   

FSD18097

The Committee was presented with the Capital Programme Monitoring Report for the second quarter of 2018/19.

The Committee noted the report, and the changes to the Capital Programme that had been agreed by the Executive in November 2018.

RESOLVED that the Portfolio Holder confirms the changes agreed by the Executive in respect to the Capital Programme for the Public Protection and Enforcement Portfolio.  

ES18092

The Planning Enforcement Scrutiny Report was written and presented by John Stephenson, (Head of Planning Appeals and Enforcement Manager).

Members were being asked to consider the report.

Members were pleased to note that the Planning Enforcement Team was being more pro-active in their approach. It was noted in section 3.6 of the report that the term ‘enquiries’ was now being used instead of ‘complaints’.

Members noted that since January 2018, 785 cases had been closed and this was good news. However, it was also the case that unfortunately 390 new cases had been registered for investigation.

It was explained that the Planning Enforcement Team consisted of 3 full time officers and 2 full time temporary officers who were agency staff. A Member commented that it was plain to see the benefits of being able to employ 2 extra investigating officers. She asked if it would be better if they were full time instead of temporary agency staff and Mr Stephenson agreed that it would be better if they were full time permanent staff. This would be a decision for Members.

Members referred to section 3.9 of the report which was a list of enforcement cases pending prosecution. A Member stated that it was important to prosecute whenever possible, and that successful prosecutions should be publicised by the Communications Team.

Members noted section 3.14 of the report which was a list of cases where prosecutions were pending. A Member asked if from time to time ward councillors could be kept updated concerning the progress of these cases. Mr Stephenson said that this should be possible.

A Member asked if a new case number was created if a previously closed case was re-opened. It was explained if new information came to light, and a case had to be re-opened, it would be linked to the previous case, but it would be allocated a new case number.

RESOLVED that

1) The Planning Enforcement Scrutiny Report is noted.

2) The Planning Enforcement Team periodically update Members concerning progress made with regard to planning enforcement prosecutions.  

As this update would contain matters that were likely to be commercially sensitive, it was moved that the update be provided under the Part 2 section of the meeting.

CSD18153

Members noted the Work Programme.

It was suggested that a possible future report that could be considered by the Committee was a report on LBB’s contract with the Coroner.

It was agreed that outcomes pertaining to the Locality Review should come back to a future meeting for noting.

It was suggested that a possible future visit could be to the Coroners’ Court.

RESOLVED that the Work Programme Report is noted.

Post Meeting Note:

An item had been listed (TBC) on the Work Programme for a report on the Air Quality Action Plan. It has since been decided that this item will go to the Environment PDS instead.   

The next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, 30^th January 2019.

The date of the next meeting was confirmed as 30^th January 2019.

The Chairman to move that the Press and Public be excluded during consideration of the items listed below as it is likely in view of the nature of the business to be transacted or the nature of the proceedings that if members of the press or pubic were present there would be disclosure to them of exempt information. 

The minutes for this item are in the Part 2 section of the minutes.

The exempt minutes of the meeting held on 27^th September 2018 were agreed and signed as a correct record.