Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillors Samaris Huntington-Thresher and Ian Payne. Councillor Russell Jackson attended as alternate for Councillor Samaris Huntington-Thresher.

There were no declarations.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, questions to this Committee must be received in writing four working days before the date of the meeting.  Therefore please ensure that questions are received by the Democratic Services Team by 5pm on Wednesday 27^th February 2013.

There were no questions to the Committee.

The minutes were agreed subject to replacing paragraph 14 at Minute 41 with the following paragraphs, which include additional wording proposed by Councillor David Jefferys (the additional wording underlined):

“Councillor Jefferys enquired how it might be possible to interact more closely with the inspectors. Indicating that engagement should be developed as a clear proposal and standard operating procedure, and submitted to the Committee for consideration, Councillor Jefferys offered Shortlands Ward as a possible area for a pilot study.

It was indicated that the new role of Street Environment Inspector was intended to incorporate engagement with the locality e.g. resident associations and shop owners. The engagement had not happened as much as officers would have liked in view of the new contract bedding in.”

It was confirmed that Officers were proposing to use Shortlands ward on a pilot basis to take forward resident engagement on street cleaning matters.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, questions to the Portfolio Holder must be received in writing four working days before the date of the meeting. Therefore please ensure that questions are received by the Democratic Services Team by 5pm on Wednesday 27^th February 2013.

Three questions were received from Mr Colin Willetts for written reply. Details of the questions and replies are at Appendix A.

The Environment Portfolio Holder to present the following scheduled report for pre-decision scrutiny on a matter where he is minded to make a decision.

Report RES13057

Several complaints had been received by the Council related to alleged obstructions to the public right to pass and re-pass along open shop forecourts. Although specific complaints related to the outside of shop premises at Station Square, Petts Wood, the issues raised in the complaints were of general application throughout the Borough. 

The Council’s recent practice on private forecourts, over which highway rights might be enjoyed, had been to normally take action only in cases of actual danger to the public. However, it was felt appropriate to consider whether the practice should be extended to enable action to be considered in response to a complaint alleging obstruction of the highway rather than actual danger.

Report RES13057 outlined the legal understanding of a highway and the role of street trading legislation on forecourts. The statutory framework in relation to non-Executive functions and Executive functions was also outlined along with enforcement considerations. This included a proposed policy for Portfolio Holder agreement which would enable the Council to take action where harm to the public resulted not just from the actual condition of the forecourt, but also from obstructions resulting from the placing of objects on the highway.

The Chairman highlighted the petition from Petts Wood residents concerning two particular forecourts at Station Square, Petts Wood. At the Chairman’s invitation, the Petts Wood and Knoll Ward Members, Councillors Douglas Auld, Simon Fawthrop and Tony Owen, joined the table for consideration of this item.

Councillor Fawthrop broadly welcomed the report. He preferred not to have fees associated with any new policy. He referred to permanent obstructions outside the two premises at Station Square, Petts Wood and to residents’ rights of way. He explained that some were users of the area rather than residents. There would be a resident’s Annual General Meeting shortly and more signatures to the petition would result. Councillor Fawthrop referred to difficulties caused by the obstructions for members of the public e.g. those with double buggies. If observing from Woodland Way, Councillor Fawthrop indicated that there was an obstruction on both sides of the road. He felt that the situation was hazardous and wanted the hazards covered by the policy. He was content for people to carry out their business but did not want the businesses to permanently obstruct the highway. Highlighting paragraph 3.19 of Report RES13057, he suggested that considerations for deciding whether to intervene in the public interest needed to be loose enough in definition to enable enforcement. He wanted the businesses concerned to carry on trading but to behave reasonably. 

Referring to an approach by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, Councillor Owen felt that a policy could be considered borough wide. He indicated that the premises known as “Desperados” were using forecourt which was not within their property and he felt that the obstructing decking needed to be removed. He also referred to wheeled planters. Councillor Owen wanted the fastest action to be taken. Referring to further obstruction from premises  ...  view the full minutes text for item 52a

Report RES13046

At its meeting on 6th February 2013, the Executive agreed a revised Capital Programme for 2012/13 to 2016/17 and changes in respect of the Capital Programme for the Environment Portfolio were outlined as were comments on individual schemes in the 2012/13 programme.

Noting a net overspend of £0.3m on Environment Portfolio schemes in 2011/12, the Chairman highlighted that the overspend was mainly on the Chislehurst Road Bridge scheme and it was agreed to provide further details concerning the overspend for this scheme.

RESOLVED that the changes agreed by the Executive on 6^th February 2013 be noted.

QUESTIONS TO THE PORTFOLIO HOLDER FROM MR COLIN WILLETTS FOR WRITTEN REPLY

1. With regard to the steep grass banking outside nos 79 - 97 Leesons Hill, nos 147- 173 Leesons Hill and 282 - 304 Chipperfield Road, could the Portfolio Holder tell us i) if the Health and Safety issues have been resolved to allow all the grass banking (top to bottom) to be cut?, ii) if these issues have not been resolved could he tell us when they will be?

Reply

(To be provided on the Portfolio Holder’s return from holiday)

--------------------

2.  Having been informed by Councillor Ince at our LCRA meeting 4/2/13 that a CCTV camera had been installed overlooking Cotmandene Crescent car park it transpired via a later email that this was 'promised' rather than 'installed'. Could the Portfolio Holder tell us when this 'promise' will be fulfilled with an approximate date for installation to counter the ongoing fly tipping problem at this location?

Reply

(To be provided on the Portfolio Holder’s return from holiday)

--------------------

3.  Could the Portfolio Holder tell us if the  flank fences forming the boundarIies adjoining the public footpaths adjacent at  i) 50 Curtismill Way & ii) 52 Curtismill Way & iii) 43 Broomwood & iv) 45 Broomwood Road are the responsibility of the London Borough of Bromley?

Reply

(To be provided on the Portfolio Holder’s return from holiday)

--------------------