Agenda and minutes

The Chairman declared a personal interest in item 6i as a nomination for membership of the Countryside Consultative Panel, and at item 7b as a member of the Chelsfield Park Residents Association.

The Vice-Chairman and Councillor Sarah Phillips also each declared a personal interest at item 6i as further nominations for membership of the Countryside Consultative Panel.

Four questions had been received for written reply – one from Chloe-Jane Ross, Chair, Copers Cope Area Residents’ Association, and three from Mr Colin Willetts. Details of the questions and replies are at Appendix A.

The Environment Portfolio Holder to present scheduled reports for pre-decision scrutiny on matters where he is minded to make decisions.

Report FSD14038

The provisional 2013/14 final outturn position for the Environment Portfolio  showed an underspend of £82k against a controllable budget of £41.136m, representing a 0.2% variation.

Report FSD14038 also highlighted 2013/14 expenditure for the three portfolio related projects within the Member Priority Initiatives earmarked reserve.

Referring to the cost of remedial works at Keston Dam, Councillor Scoates enquired whether the cost could be covered by insurance.  

RESOLVED that the Portfolio Holder be recommended to:

(1) endorse the 2013/14 provisional outturn position for the Environment Portfolio;

(2) note the outturn position in respect of the Environment projects within the Member Priority Initiatives programme; and

(3) approve draw-down of the carry forward sum of £65k held in Central Contingency, to be used to fund works required at Keston Dam.

Report FSD14037

Members received the latest budget monitoring position for the Portfolio.

Based on expenditure and activity levels to 31^st May 2014, the 2014/15 controllable budget for the Environment Portfolio was projected to balance at year-end.

In noting a projected net surplus from the issue of Penalty Charge Notices Councillor Samaris Huntington-Thresher was advised that that there had been no change in enforcement practice.

RESOLVED that the Portfolio Holder be recommended to endorse the latest 2014/15 budget projection for the Environment Portfolio.

Report ES14048

Following recent discussions and work with Transport for London,  an update was provided on the latest position regarding potential public transport extensions to Bromley.

TfL had undertaken feasibility work over the previous 12-18 months to develop a business case for an extension of the DLR from Lewisham to Bromley. Simultaneously, TfL had also undertaken feasibility work for extending the Bakerloo line from Elephant and Castle and the Overground from New Cross to Bromley North. Tramlink proposals had been previously developed and more recently, the Tramlink development team had been working to refine route options and alignments.

Potential benefits were highlighted from investment in the rail options outlined in the report along with the latest update on each of the potential options.

For a DLR extension to Bromley, the report advised that the overall Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) represented insufficient value for money, as defined by TfL’s business case methodology and the DfT’s transport scheme appraisal guidance. This took account of the total cost of an extension, the direct transport benefits that would be realised, and the development and growth potential. On 20th March 2014, the Mayor of London instructed TfL to cease further work on the DLR business case.

The Council had subsequently asked TfL to undertake further work on a London Overground extension from New Cross to Bromley North, using the existing rail corridor, to provide improved rail connectivity between Bromley and Canary Wharf.

In discussion a number of comments were made. In response to a suggestion that existing capacity and service frequencies be increased (e.g. platforms lengthened) instead of a new extension, particularly for the Orpington/Lewisham route, it was indicated that the Council had made representations to TfL on route structure. The Council had also lobbied for increased capacity as existing rail routes to central London – including Orpington to Lewisham – were already operating at maximum capacity during peak periods. As such, there were feasibility studies on extending the London Overground between existing national rail services.

Referring to a Bakerloo line extension to Hayes, Councillor Phillips suggested that TfL ask more questions on the advantages of the existing line e.g. any cost advantage to passengers of travelling solely by national rail to Central London. 

There continued to be a significant amount of work in developing proposals. TfL had drafted further staff to address some of the Council’s concerns. It was necessary to know the proportion of Hayes line passengers who would be adversely affected by a Bakerloo line extension. Current data was not comprehensive.

TfL had recently written confirming that work on proposals for a DLR extension to Bromley would cease. The Portfolio Holder reminded Members that this was contrary to the Mayor of London’s election pledge and the Council would write in the strongest terms that this would not be accepted as the final position. The Portfolio Holder referred to the additional cost of a Bakerloo line extension which was not wanted by local residents. Solid financial evidence was needed of why a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6c

Report ES14029

Members considered the draft Environment Portfolio Plan for 2014/17.

The Vice-Chairman offered her congratulations on progress made against priorities in the Plan.

In respect of street cleaning and some roads having tightly parked cars during the week, the Portfolio Holder highlighted that such roads could be cleaned at weekends. Officers were looking to improve the weekend service and Members were encouraged to liaise with the Portfolio Holder and officers on this. The Chairman highlighted the Committee’s intention to review street cleaning performance again at its January meeting.

On waste, the level of recycling in the borough had plateaued with the quantity of waste having increased. Initiatives had been planned around Green Garden Waste (GGW) and textile collections to increase recycling.  However, paper quantities for recycling had reduced but improved recycling of other materials and the new initiatives had so far compensated for this. A decreasing level of paper could be attributed to an increasing use of digital media, a trend which was unlikely to reverse.

Councillor Brooks suggested that a number of residents in housing blocks might be unclear on where to place different categories of material for recycling. He also recommended that the “Fix My Street” facility on the Council website be more widely advertised.

It was confirmed that a 2013/14 return on the percentage of children travelling to school by car would be in the half-year performance report to Members. For a 2013/14 performance return on (i) principal roads condition, (ii) non-principal classified roads, and (iii) town centre footway surfaces, a percentage return would be provided when figures were available hopefully next month. Footnotes were suggested in the Plan to explain these points. The Chairman indicated that the details would also be circulated to Committee Members. 

In view of the particularly difficult budget position faced by the Council, the Chairman suggested that Council communications convey the cost and value of services and public facilities e.g. parks.

RESOLVED that the Portfolio Holder be recommended to endorse the aims, activities, outcome measures and service expectations proposed in the draft Portfolio Plan, taking into consideration the budget for 2014/15 which has already been agreed.

Report ES14034

Highlighting that L B Bromley’s current parking operations and enforcement contract with Vinci Park Services expires in September 2016, coinciding with the planned end date for L B Bexley’s parking contract with NSL, Report ES 14034 proposed that a Procurement Gateway Review be undertaken of the options for a single shared parking contract for both boroughs from October 2016. The review would assess options for the future delivery of the services and the packaging of the shared contract. It would take into account:

·  the current state of the market for enforcement services;

·  developments in parking management and enforcement nationally; and

·  consideration of options for inclusion in the new contract.

The Chairman suggested a PDS Working Group to oversee the proposed Gateway Review Team. The Working Group’s consideration of the parking services contract would include consideration of the proposals on parking enforcement announced by the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG). Although future changes were expected, a contract in the order of ten years would enable a contractor to invest in the service. A break clause could also be included e.g. after a period of five years.

Proposed changes on parking enforcement related primarily to the use of CCTV. It would be necessary to understand the practical implications of any changes and whether more enforcement would be necessary by foot patrols. Some exceptions were expected from any CCTV ban e.g. around schools and bus lanes. Clarity on the detail of changes should be provided during the review and their implications for the parking service provided in a further report to Members next March. The Portfolio Holder expressed concern for any ban on CCTV parking enforcement. It would adversely affect the range of areas enforced; the number of fines imposed for infringements and therefore the level of deterrent for unsafe and inconsiderate parking. It was unclear where parking officers currently employed on CCTV enforcement could be deployed. The Portfolio Holder suggested that road safety around schools could also be jeopardised as the cost of the fleet of CCTV cars could not be covered by use outside schools alone. Local MPs had been lobbied and London Councils were briefing Parliament on the proposals.

It was confirmed there would be a variable budget element for the shared service contract. As part of the review, consideration would be given to how enforcement costs are apportioned between the two boroughs.

RESOLVED that the Environment Portfolio Holder be recommended to agree that:

(1)  a Procurement Gateway review of options for the shared parking services contract be undertaken, and a further report brought to Members in March 2015;

(2)  specific consideration be given to options for the Key Performance Indicators to be used for managing the contract; and

(3)  the length of the contract be for a 10 year period with a potential break clause after 5 years.

Report ES14041

Local Investment Plan (LIP) funding, of the order of £150k over each of the next three years, has been earmarked for station access improvements across the borough.

Improvements for all modes of travel to and from stations can be considered: walking; cycling; public transport interchange; parking; drop off and pick up; and disabled access to the station buildings themselves. However, with insufficient funding to implement schemes at every station, a priority methodology was proposed to progress works.

Taking all factors into account, the proposed first priority stations in the Borough were listed as Elmstead Woods, Penge East, Petts Wood and Shortlands. Individual schemes would be reported to Members with details of design and implementation costs, along with details of any potential on-going costs and funding.

Suggesting that Kent House station might benefit from pedestrian access improvements, Councillor Phillips asked whether more stations might similarly benefit if improvements were of a lower scale and at reduced cost. It was confirmed that the access road leading to Kent House Station was unadopted, although officers could look at the possibility of adoption next year when developing a further round of station access improvements.  

Rather than have a number of minor improvements with minimal impact, it was intended to have a rolling programme of larger access improvements for a small number of stations in each the next three years. There would be an in-depth review of station access across the borough. Priorities could then be investigated one year and improvements implemented the next at a small number of stations. It was confirmed that it would be for Network Rail to take forward access improvements on land it owned, and officers had met Network Rail representatives.

Individual schemes for station access improvement would be taken forward via Ward Members and the Portfolio Holder. The Chairman suggested that Ward Members be consulted on the demand for access projects at the proposed stations. Councillor Brookes confirmed that he had received suggestions from residents on access improvements for Penge East station. 

The Chairman also expected Network Rail to provide measures for disabled access at stations and highlighted the forthcoming Public Transport Liaison meeting (scheduled for 24^th July 2014).

Referring to Orpington, the Chairman highlighted local support for improved means to link Orpington High Street and Orpington Station. In this context, he referred to having effective way-finding for the High Street and station.

 RESOLVED that the Portfolio Holder be recommended to confirm:

(1)  the suggested priority rationale set out in Paragraph 3.2 and Appendix 1 of Report ES14041; and

(2)  Elmstead Woods, Penge East, Petts Wood and Shortlands as the first priority stations in the borough for station access improvements.

Report ES14040

The Portfolio Holder was asked to approve funding for the development of a proposal to improve the A222 across Chislehurst Common. The Congestion Working Group had referred to the Chislehurst Common section of the A222 as a congestion pinch point, with congestion particularly occurring during morning and afternoon peaks.

Anecdotal evidence suggested that many drivers cut through the Common using either Ashfield Lane/Prince Imperial Road or Royal Parade/Watts Lane, to avoid the War Memorial junction in particular.

To address the issue,  a “land swap” was proposed with a single carriageway road between Heathfield Lane and Prince Imperial Road/Centre Common Road, replacing lesser used roads across the common. Land could be returned to the Common significantly improving its amenity. The precise location of the replacement road and any designs would be subject to discussion with the Commons Conservators and other stakeholders.

Four junctions on the A222  with the worst congestion were being considered for improvement subject to a traffic survey before decisions are taken on which (if any) junctions should be improved. It was necessary to undertake origin-destination surveys as well as volume and turning counts.

Informal discussions had taken place with Ward Members, Commons Conservators and the Chislehurst Society. All were supportive of the plans being developed further.

RESOLVED that the Portfolio Holder be recommended to approve the allocation of up to £60k of LIP funding to develop the proposals for improvements on the A222.

Report ES14057

Members considered the Council’s approach to requests for various parking controls, including waiting restrictions (yellow lines). Report ES14057 proposed criteria for determining where parking should and should not be permitted, outlining design considerations for parking controls in residential areas (including minor changes to the highway) and incorporating:

·  Waiting Restrictions (yellow lines)

·  Flank Boundary Parking

·  Footway Parking

·  White Bar Access Markings

·  Disabled Persons Parking Bays

The report also sought to reaffirm the Council’s position on trying to provide suitable on-street parking places.

It was recommended that existing practice be confirmed across the borough with the following approach to be taken:

• the standard length of junction treatment restrictions to be 10 metres, with authority to vary in special circumstances depending on individual site circumstances or for engineering / road safety issues;

·  where road widths permit, as described at paragraph 3.17 of Report ES14057, to allow flank boundary parking without restrictions;

·  for any new scheme promoted, or existing scheme reviewed, to assess locations where flank boundary parking can be provided and where restrictions can be removed to provide additional parking places; and

• footway parking to only be introduced in special circumstances and where sufficient footway widths as described at paragraph 3.24 of Report ES14057 can be retained - this only applying where footways are deemed sufficiently robust, or can be upgraded, to withstand the weight of vehicles without excessive damage.

Report ES14057 also gave notice of certain parking controls to be reviewed.

Officers considered that a new approach was needed for implementing White Bar Access markings, including agreed criteria, to allow a consistent approach borough-wide. A further report would outline such issues and recommend a new process for implementation. No fee was currently charged to applicants for White Bar markings.

On Disabled Persons Parking Bays, the number of bays across the Borough had increased over the years, along with the Council’s costs to install, maintain and process applications for such bays. With the existing process and criteria having been in place for a number of years, a review of the current process was considered necessary. As such, a further report would be compiled to examine the processes involved in implementing disabled drivers’ bays, along with ways to address escalating costs and the time involved in assessing and implementing such schemes.

The Chairman supported measures in Report ES14057 for footway parking. He suggested that footway parking exemptions, in the circumstances outlined, might be helpful to allow emergency vehicles to pass. Permission for footway and carriageway parking should take account of street furniture and trees, so emergency vehicles could if necessary mount the pavement to reach their destination; it would be beneficial if posts holding signs showing the parking restrictions could be set back from the carriageway. Removing unnecessary street furniture could also enable footway parking on both sides of a road. For consistency, the Chairman asked that the policy outlined in Report ES14057 correspond with footway parking criteria outlined in a further policy document published by the Council, particularly in regard to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6h

Report CSD14093

Members supported nominations to the Countryside Consultative Panel and the Leisure Gardens and Allotments Panel for 2014/15.

RESOLVED that:

(1) Councillors Lydia Buttinger, Ian Dunn, William Huntington-Thresher, Sarah Phillips, and Colin Smith be appointed to the Countryside Consultative Panel for 2014/15; and

(2) CouncillorsVanessa Allen,  Mary Cooke, Ellie Harmer, Alexa Michael, and Michael Turnerbe appointed to the Leisure Gardens and Allotments Panel for 2014/15.

Report ES14042

Report ES14042 provided an update on the Council’s role as Lead Local Flood Authority. It considered the impact of recent groundwater flood events and sought the Portfolio Holder’s views on the Council’s involvement in future events.

It also sought Executive agreement to the release of dedicated Central Contingency funding (£250k) to fund works detailed in the report and to ensure the Council meets its statutory duties as Lead Local Flood Authority.

Members were advised that pumping downstream from the gardens of Courtfield Rise, West Wickham had ceased ten days previously.

Concerning the Council’s role in any future groundwater flooding event, the Chairman suggested that the Council’s role should focus on facilitating works on behalf of residents i.e. working with and helping residents make suitable arrangements.

The Portfolio Holder briefly outlined the Council’s position during the recent groundwater flood events. Although the Council has no direct responsibility for pumping arrangements to remove groundwater, the Council assisted with this to help residents stay in their homes. However, in so doing it became unnecessary for insurance companies to act/provide compensation. Ministers would be lobbied on the position. 

The Vice-Chairman suggested that it was difficult to assess whether the Council should similarly assist in future flood events without being able to predict the scale of flooding. However, it was necessary for the Council’s website to outline the Council’s responsibilities during a flood event, including the Council’s policy and legal position in such events.

Councillor Samaris Huntington-Thresher saw the Council’s role as linking agencies together to work in a timely manner. She felt the Council had a moral responsibility to assist in encouraging agencies to work together. It was also important to understand the reasons for flooding at Borkwood Court and to make sure that funds invested are worthwhile.

The Chairman felt the Council should support residents make their own flood protection arrangements for their property, with the Council providing a facilitating role with relevant agencies. It was necessary to be clear on the Council’s responsibilities. In the event of a flooding event, emergency services e.g. London Fire Brigade/Thames water should be expected to take initial action to remove excess water.

Referring to funding from the Repair and Renewal Grant scheme (which could be pooled to provide infrastructure protecting a whole site rather than individual properties), and a proposal that L B Bromley match funds this with a contribution of up to £30k towards the cost of infrastructure at Borkwood Court and Courtfield Rise, it was suggested that further consideration might be necessary should the match funding have to be directed to one specific area. It was suggested that proposals related to Borkwood Court be referred in the first instance to Ward Members for consideration.

RESOLVED that:

(1) the Executive be recommended to agree to a sum of £250k being released from the dedicated 2014/15 Central Contingency budget to implement the proposals detailed in Report ES14042; 

(2) the Environment Portfolio Holder be recommended to consider the

L B Bromley’s role in any  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7a

Report ES14036

In considering Working Groups for 2014/15, Members agreed to establish two Working Groups on Waste and Parking. The need for a Transport Strategy Working Group would be considered at the next PDS pending clarification of the likely terms of reference.  

Further Member investigation was also considered necessary on highway maintenance and a decision would be taken at the next meeting on how best to take this forward. 

For the meeting on 20^th January 2015, the Chairman requested an item to review performance on street cleansing and leaf removal in the borough. As part of the Committee’s scrutiny work it was also possible to look at the performance of a partner organisation e.g. TfL, road traffic police etc. The Chairman asked for Member views on a preferred partner organisation to invite to a future meeting.

Members also agreed to revert back to a 7.30pm start time for meetings.

A Public Transport Liaison meeting would be held at the Civic Centre on

24^th July 2014 at 6.30pm.

RESOLVED that:

(1) the Committee’s rolling 2014/15 Work Programme be agreed, subject to an item on street cleansing and leaf removal at the Committee’s meeting on 20^th January 2015;

(2) progress related to previous Committee requests be noted;

(3) the summary of contracts related to the Environment Portfolio be noted;

(4) the following Working Groups and memberships be established for 2014/15 –

Democratic Services note: following the meeting, Councillor Catherine Rideout asked to be moved from the Waste Working Group to the Parking Group. This would increase membership of the Parking Working Group and was agreed by the Chairman.

The Chairman to move that the Press and public be excluded during consideration of the items of business 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 and public were present there would be disclosure to them of exempt information.