Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor David Cartwright, Councillor Ian Dunn and Councillor Terence Nathan.  Councillor Charles Rideout attended as alternate for Councillor Cartwright and Councillor Kevin Brookes attended as alternate for Councillor Dunn.

In respect of Item 6c, Councillor Charles Rideout declared an interest as a Member of Cycle UK.

In respect of Item 6h, Councillors William Huntington-Thresher, Lydia Buttinger, and Sarah Phillips declared an interest as they were nominated for appointment to the respective Panels.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, questions to the Chairman of 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 1^st June 2016.

There were no questions to the Committee.

The minutes of the meeting held on 15 March 2016 were agreed, and signed as a correct record.

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 1^st June 2016.

Three questions were received for oral reply and two questions were received for written reply.  Details of the questions and replies are attached at Appendix A to the minutes.

Report FSD16037

The report provided the Portfolio Holder with the provisional outturn position for 2015/16 for the Environment Portfolio.  This showed an underspend of £1.049 million for 2015/16 against a controllable budget of £33.14 million, representing a 3.17% variation.  Excluding a carry forward sum of £306,000, the underspend was £743,000.

The report detailed the major variations compared to the last reported budget monitoring report in March 2015 which included:

Street Scene and Green Space (Cr 167,000) – saving of £43,000 from public conveniences due to the implementation of budget options before the end of last year  and savings from staff vacancies, market income and snow friend materials and other miscellaneous variations.

Transport and highways (Cr 873,000) – the mild winter resulted in an underspend of winter service budgets of £131,000 and at the end of the year there was a surplus income totalling £266,000 for on and off street parking.  A reduction in the use of the mail delivery service led to savings of £42,000.  Staffing vacancies during the year led to an underspend on staffing across the division of £176,000.

The report also detailed carry forward requests which included £180,000 to meet the costs of the equipment and installation of bus lane automated cameras; £126,000 to meet the costs of the equipment installation of non bus lanes automated cameras; £13,090 for the Waste Electrical and electronic Equipment collection projects; and £69,482 from the Lead Local Flood Authority Grant.

RESOLVED: That the Portfolio Holder be recommended to:

(a) Endorse the 2015/16 provisional outturn position for the Environment Portfolio;

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

(c) Approve the drawdown of the carry forward sums held in Central Contingency, £306,000 for parking automatic cameras, £13,000 for the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Grant funded work and £69,500 to develop standing advice that could be provided on surface water drainage proposals in major development planning applications.

Report FSD16027

The report set out the revised Capital Programme for the Environment Portfolio.  On 10 February 2016, the Executive agreed a revised Capital Programme for the five year period 2015/16 to 2019/20 following a detailed monitoring exercise.  The report highlighted the changes agreed by Executive in respect of the Capital Programme for the Environment Portfolio which included an overall increase of £79,000 for highway schemes, and additional funding for the Gosshill Road (£289,000) and Orpington Railway Station (£130,000) schemes.  Following completion of The Hill and Bromley Town Centre Car Parking schemes the Executive agreed to delete the residual balance on these schemes (£13,000) from the Capital Programme (the post completion report for these two schemes was submitted to the Environment PDS Committee on 2 February 2016).  As part of the Third Quarter monitoring exercise, £243,000 was rephrased from 2015/16 into 2016/17 to reflect revised estimates of when expenditure on Environment schemes was likely to be incurred.

RESOLVED: That the Portfolio Holder be recommended to note and confirm the changes agreed by the Executive on 10 February 2016.

Report ES16020

The report presented that draft 2016-19 Environment Portfolio Plan for scrutiny by members of the Environment PDS Committee and endorsement by the Environment Portfolio Holder.  The Environment Portfolio Plan set out six broad outcomes:

1. Improving the Street Scene

2. Minimising Waste and Increasing Recycling

3. Enhancing Bromley’s Parks and Green Space

4. Managing our Transport Infrastructure and Public Realm

5. Improving Travel, Transport and Parking

6. Improving Customer Service and Business Management.

Each outcome had an associated aim, mainly delivered through service contracts (the report provided at-a-glance summaries of the Portfolio’s contracts with a value greater than £50,000).

During 2016/17 a number of new initiatives would be undertaken including implementing the Beckenham Town Centre public realm project, improving Penge High street; delivering the new Joint Parking Services contract; developing a ‘Neighbourhood Management’ approach for Streetscene and Greenspace; integrating all Highways activity within one team; and developing commissioning options for the Portfolio’s larger contracts, including Waste Services, Grounds Maintenance, Highways Management and Street Cleansing.  The Plan also included a limited number of carefully selected indicators which allowed performance against service outcomes to be measured overtime.

In addition the report detailed 2016/17 priority outcomes and key achievements for 2015/16 and provided a detailed performance summary for 2015/16.

The Committee discussed road safety and suggested that there needed to be a specific focus on children.  In response the Portfolio Holder agreed that road safety was very important and highlighted that the ethos of the Council was based on education.  The Council had a number of nationally recognised road safety schemes.

The issue of grass cutting was considered by the Committee with a Member reporting instances of flooding as a result of drains being blocked by grass that had been cut by a strimmer and subsequently blowing into the drain.  The Portfolio Holder responded that he was not aware of flooding caused by drains blocked by grass and that he would be interested to see the report and data in respect of this as flooding was a serious concern.  The Portfolio Holder stressed that seasonal first cuts of the year were key.  The Landscape Team had confirmed that the seasonal grass cutting schedule was progressing well.  If the Committee felt that extra grass cutting was required there would inevitably be budget implications and any additional spending items would need to be justified.

Members of the Committee expressed concerns surrounding the increase in fly tipping.  Officers reported that there were targets for fly tipping enforcement action and that the Council continued to work with the Police in order to tackle instances of fly tipping.

The Committee noted the key achievements for 2015/16 and the Chairman highlighted that the Council had received the Partnership Working Award from the British Parking Association for the LB Bromley/Bexley Shared Parking Service.

RESOLVED: That the Portfolio Holder be recommended to

(a) Endorse the outcomes, aims and performance measures set out in the draft 2016-19 Environment Portfolio Plan, taking into account the 2016/17 budget; and

(b) Endorse the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6c

Report ES16031

The report outlined the consultation carried out on Disabled Person Parking Bays and the proposal to introduce a Disabled Person Parking Bay permit.  The report also considered the white bar scheme that was implemented and progressed in the previous  year.  Following public consultation it was recommended to proceed with a revised Disabled Parking Bay Permit scheme, whereby blue badge holders that had had a disabled parking bay provided on street had the option of an exclusive parking permit rather than this being compulsory as previously proposed. The report also outlined the relevant history, previous consultation results and the financial considerations and implications for future budgets. The report set out the Equality Impact Assessment that had been developed during the process.

In response to a question surrounding how the distinction would be made between bays that were for sole use and bays that were for general use, the Head of Traffic and Road Safety reported that signage would be installed and that permit numbers would be allocated to specific bays, if non-permit holders were found parked in a bay allocated to a specific permit number enforcement action could be taken.

The committee queried the legibility of signage for disabled users and whether a single sign on a pole adjacent to and facing the carriageway would be readable for people with limited mobility. The committee asked if consideration should be given to an additional sign facing the pavement. The Portfolio Holder sought assurances that any signage would be on lower poles and unobtrusive.  In response the Head of Traffic and Road Safety stressed that there was a need to ensure that any signage was clearly visible in order to aid enforcement but that Officers would seek to ensure that signage was made as unobtrusive as possible.

In the course of discussion, Members of the Committee noted that the initial outlay of £160 (£80 for the installation of a bay and £80 for the permit) may deter some service users who would benefit from the scheme from applying, especially those on lower incomes.  Members of the Committee agreed that the following additional recommendation should be added:

That authority be delegated to the Executive Director of Environment and Community Services in consultation with the Portfolio Holder to investigate additional payment options for disabled person parking bay permits.

Turning to the issue of the White Bar Marking Scheme, the Committee considered that white bars should only be installed in areas where they were really needed.  The chairman raised the issue that the current scheme did not allow white bars to be installed in addition to yellow lines. It was noted that white bars could not replace yellow lines but Members acknowledged that some residents, especially those living in the vicinity of train stations, benefitted from white bars across their driveways and were willing to pay the fee to have such lines installed as an added deterrent to cars parking across driveways. It was agreed that the scheme would be altered to allow white  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6d

Report ES16030

The report detailed proposals to help alleviate congestion and improve road safety in High Street Penge and at the junction of High Street Penge / Green Lane / Croydon Road.  The scheme would also make significant improvements to the public realm in the High Street, which would complement schemes being undertaken by the Town Centre Planning & Regeneration Team in the Planning Department.

The Committee noted that Ward Members were supportive of the proposals.

The Portfolio Holder thanked the Ward Members for their input into the development of the proposals.

RESOLVED: That the Portfolio Holder be recommended to agree:

(a) That the proposed improvements to High Street Penge and at its junction with Croydon Road and Green Lane are implemented, subject to a consultation with property owners and businesses adjacent to the scheme.

(b) That approval be given to the scheme at a cost of £450,000 which will be met from the Borough’s Local Implementation Plan (LIP) fund and Transport for London Bus congestion reduction / disability access funding, subject to final confirmation from TfL.

(c) That authority to make any further minor modifications, which may arise as a result of proposed consultations, be delegated to the Executive Director of Environment and Community Services.

Report ES16021

The report recommended the installation of a mini roundabout at the junction of Copers Cope Road with Bridge Road, Beckenham, BR3.  This was part of a traffic calming scheme on Copers Cope Road which had been the subject of reported speeding over a period of time and subsequent collisions.  The junction with Bridge Road itself had witnessed one fatality and several minor accidents in recent years.  In addition a pedestrian refuge at the junction with Park Road was recommended to aid pedestrians crossing Copers Cope Road in order to access New Beckenham station and the schools beyond.

Councillor Tickner, in his capacity of Ward Member, addressed the Committee explaining that Ward Members welcomed the plans that were being presented.  The Committee were reminded that there was a great deal of traffic congestion in the area and the junction in question was very difficult.  The road closure that had been implemented had been very successful and this had enabled the proposed construction of a mini roundabout.  In respect of Recommendation 2.2 Ward Members requested that the recommendation be amended to “…approval is sought to install a 3-arm mini roundabout at the junction of Bridge Road and Copers Cope Road as shown in drawing no. 11735-106 with the addition of at least 1 pedestrian refuge at the junction of Copers Cope Road”.  In respect of Recommendation 2.3, Ward Members believed that the pedestrian refuge should be to the north of the junction (rather than the south).  Residents had reported that there was higher footfall to the north of the junction as a result of commuters walking from the station and crossing at the north of the junction and this had been confirmed by the investigations carried out by Ward Members.

The Head of Traffic and Road Safety reported that no work had been undertaken surrounding the viability of the Ward Councillors’ first proposal as the initial emphasis had been on the Park Road Junction.  In terms of the pedestrian refuge at the north of the junction, the counts that had been undertaken by Officers had indicated that the majority of pedestrians passed at the south side of Park Road.  There had been further practical reasons why a refuge to the north had not been pursued as it was felt that a refuge in this area could obstruct residents’ driveways.

In response to questions from the Chairman the Head of Traffic and Road Safety confirmed that there had been no accidents in this area of Copers Cope Road involving pedestrians.  The scheme, if implemented, would be subject to a stage 3 Safety Audit and a 6 month and 12 month review with a further review 3 years after implementation.  Signage would be installed to highlight the new road layout and there would be a different colour anti-skid surface on the approaches to the roundabout.

During discussion of the proposals Members of the Committee suggested that the location of the refuge in Copers Cope Road should be considered and investigated  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6f

Report ES16028

The report sought to obtain a Resolution of Approval under the Private Street Works Code, in respect of the  unadopted highway known as Plawsfield Road.  This would enable the street to be made-up and adopted as a highway maintainable at the public expense.

The estimated cost of £424,000 for the implementation of the works would be funded from the 2016/17 TfL Local Implementation Plan (LIP) budget for Public Transport Interchange and Access, Making Up and Adoption Plawsfield Road (£369,501) and from funding carried forward from 2015/16 for Plawsfield Road (£80k).  Once adopted the footways and carriageway should not require any planned or reactive maintenance during the twenty year design life. The cost of street cleaning and cyclical maintenance of drainage assets would need to be met from existing revenue budgets.  

Councillor Brooks, in his capacity as Ward Member, reported that he was supportive of the proposals and thanked the residents, for engaging with the process, and the Portfolio Holder for his work in ensuring that there was an acceptable resolution. Cllr Phillips as a neighbouring ward member also expressed her support of the scheme.

   RESOLVED: That the Portfolio Holder be recommended to agree:

  (a) That the specification, plan, sections, estimate and provisional apportionment now submitted by the Executive Director of Environmental and Community Services, in respect of the scheme approved by the Environment Portfolio Holder on 3 August 2015, be approved without modification and:-

  (b) That the Council bears the whole of the cost of the works, which will be met from funding provided by Transport for London under the provisions of s.236(1) of the Highways Act 1980.

Report CSD16086

The report set out the nominations for the appointment of Members to two Consultative Panels within the remit of the Environment Portfolio, the Countryside Consultative Panel and the Leisure Gardens and Allotments Panel.

The following nominations for the Countryside Consultative Panel had been received:

Councillors Julian Benington, Lydia Buttinger, Ian Dunn, William Huntington-Thresher and Alexa Michael.

The Committee noted that for the first part of 2016/17, the Panel would function in its current form with the first meeting scheduled for July. Subject to the Panel’s agreement, it was intended to amalgamate the Panel with strategy and policy issues arising fromthe Biodiversity Partnership and this would be highlighted for discussion at the July meeting.

The following nominations for the Leisure Gardens and Allotments Panel had been received: 

Councillors Vanessa Allen, Julian Benington, Mary Cooke, Alexa Michael and Sarah Phillips.

RESOLVED: That the Portfolio Holder agree that:

(a) Councillors Julian Benington, Lydia Buttinger, Ian Dunn, William Huntington-Thresher and Alexa Michael be appointed to the Countryside Consultative Panel for 2016/17; and

(b) Councillors Vanessa Allen, Julian Benington, Mary Cooke, Alexa Michael and Sarah Phillips be appointed to the Leisure Gardens and Allotments Panel for 2016/17.

Report ES16032

The report provided an update on the Council’s role as the Lead Local Flood Authority and sought agreement from the Executive to release dedicated Central Contingency funding to ensure the Council met its statutory duties as the Lead Local Flood Authority.

The Flooding and Water Management Act (FWMA) 2010 required the London Borough of Bromley, as the Lead Local Flood Authority (LLFA), to develop, maintain, apply and monitor a strategy for local flood risk management in its area.  The LLFA had a duty to identify the causes of surface water flooding, including groundwater, and determine those organisations or authorities that had a role in mitigating the flood risk and having identified those parties, provide a forum where such parties can be brought together to produce a considered and coordinated response. 

In 2015 DEFRA awarded one-off grants to all Lead Local Flood Authorities to help support their role as statutory consultees for the planning application process. It was proposed that the grant received by LBB of £69,482 was used to fund technical advice on surface water drainage proposals through planning applications during 2016/17, particularly providing advice on surface water drainage proposals in major developments, with any residual funding being used to supplement the maintenance and improvements of surface water drainage assets.

In response to a question, the Head of Highways reported that some schemes had been developed but that any priorities highlighted by members would be considered for inclusion.

RESOLVED: That the Executive be recommended to:

(a) Agree to release a sum of £213,000 from the 2016/17 Central Contingency budget to implement the proposals detailed in this report, and include a sum of £213,000 in future budgets.

(b) Agree to release the DEFRA grant of £69,482 to meet the costs of providing technical advice on surface water drainage proposals through planning process as well as the maintenance and improvements of surface water drainage assets.

(c) Approve the Local Lead Flood Authority future works programme.

Report to follow

Report ES16035

The report sought consent to grant a 25 year lease to FC Elmstead for part of Chislehurst Recreation Ground. The report also asked Members to agree the approach for accepting a grant from the Football Foundation to enable the construction of a new pavilion building at this location, as well as agreeing to accept the conditions associated with this grant.

FC Elmstead had been successful in securing funding of £365,000 to redevelop the pavilion. £258,865 of this funding was secured from the Football Foundation, and had a number of conditions attached to the acceptance of the monies. The report set out in detail two potential options available to the Council for meeting the grant conditions:

Option 1: joint delivery with the Council becoming a joint applicant with FC Elmstead.

Option 2: sole delivery with FC Elmstead being solely responsible for fulfilling the terms and conditions of the grant and therefore be solely liable for the any risks associated with the construction of the pavilion and its on-going use etc.

In both of the potential options detailed in the report, the club would be holding the Football Foundation grant monies, carrying out procurement and the build themselves. The club were currently assessing tender returns for the capital works.  Although the total project budget could not be finalised until the tender had been awarded, the final project costs should include the capital works, contingency, professional fees, VAT and the Community Infrastructure Levy payment. There were specific timescales around when the club needed to make its grant claims to the Foundation.

Given that there were a number of risks associated with Option 1 and that the Council may be liable for costs of £14,000 to ensure that a number of measures were in place to mitigate some, but not all, of the risks, Members were advised to agree Option 2, that the club be solely responsible for the grant monies including procurement and delivery of the project.  In Option 2, the Football Foundation had agreed to accept the proposal from the Council that the 25 year lease for the area of the pavilion be amended to include a right to use the pitches, rather than granting a separate lease. This Option significantly reduced the risks to the Council, in that FC Elmstead would be the sole recipient of the grant and therefore solely responsible for the building over the 25 year term of their full repairing lease.

To mitigate the risks further, it was recommended that;

·  the club undertook the surveys outlined in 3.12 of the report;

·  the club took out a Performance Bond to the value of 10% of the works

·  appropriate conditions relating to the construction period were included in the agreement for lease or lease (as appropriate) to protect the Council’s interest during that period

·  the building works were signed off via the Building Control process

·  a 25 year full repairing and insuring lease be issued to ensure the club was responsible for all repairs to the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7b

Report ES16027

In November 2012, the Head of Traffic and Road Safety reported to the Committee on the progress of a number of ‘pinch point’ schemes to tackle congestion on the local highway network.

This report before the committee provided an up-date on the progress of these schemes and included a number of new schemes that had come forward since 2012 as identified in the Local Implementation Plan (LIP) programme. The report also highlighted the importance of having an agreed programme in place and how this would provide the opportunity to seek funding for some of these schemes through the Community Infra-structure Levy (CIL). 

Congestion Relief schemes were a major part of the LIP programme funded by TfL. Eligibility for TfL funding was authorised through the Council having an approved Local Implementation Plan programme which set out how the Council intended to implement the Mayor’s Transport Strategy. The current financial year, 2016/17, was the final year of the three year LIP2 and preparation of LIP3 was underway although this awaited direction through the new Mayor’s Transport Strategy.  The fact that congestion reduction formed such a significant part of the programme reflected the priority placed upon this by Members over the past eight years. The work carried out in recent years reflected the priorities given to officers by the Members Congestion Working Group in 2010.  The vast majority of the smaller, ‘quick win’ and lower cost schemes had, where possible, been delivered.  Some larger schemes were now being considered, but as schemes increased in size and complexity some of the very largest were likely to remain outside the scope of the LIP but could be subject to one-off scheme specific bids to TfL. Developer funds through the S106 process and the Community Infra-structure Levy (CIL) would be utilised to also help achieve these objectives. 

The schemes outlined in the repot originated from a number of sources including Ward Councillors, members of the public, local bus operators and Council officers from local investigations, traffic monitoring and use of TfL’s network performance data.  They also sought to enable the unlocking of potential development sites thereby helping to mitigate the traffic generated whilst providing new and improved facilities to create increased travel choices.     

The following priorities had been identified:

·  Keston Mark (A233) to Biggin Hill corridor improvement study

·  Westmoreland Road/Masons Hill junction improvement

·  Crystal Palace Parade/Anerley Hill junction improvement

·  Chislehurst Common congestion relief scheme

·  Penge High Street congestion relief scheme

·  St Paul’s Cray, Sevenoaks Way between Main Road and A20

·  Orpington, Crofton Road/Station Road between York Rise and Sevenoaks Road congestion relief scheme

·  Mottingham,  Elmstead Lane/William Barefoot Drive junction improvement scheme 

·  Shortlands Station area congestion relief scheme. 

The Chairman noted that the element in the report focused on junctions and that in time there would be a requirement for an element that focused on destinations, such as Biggin Hill SOLDC and Bromley Town Centre.

The Portfolio Holder requested that part of the brief for Officers should include assessing the impact of school  ...  view the full minutes text for item 8.

Report ES16019

The report set out information relating to the Committees future business and key contracts.

The Committee agreed to establish three working group for the year covering the following areas:

• Street Scene
• Highways and Footways Repair
• Congestion

It was agreed that Membership of the Working Groups would be finalised following the meeting.

It was agreed that The Landscape Group would be scrutinised at the January meeting.

The Portfolio Holder requested that the Committee review the way in which electronically reported faults were handled.  The Chairman suggested that a future meeting could include a wider discussion bringing together Council officers and the four Council contractors that used Fix My Street in order to share best practice and assist Members in gaining an understanding on how the contractors worked with Fix My Street.

RESOLVED: that

(a) the updated Work Plan be agreed;

(b) the Working Groups outlined above be established and memberships confirmed following the meeting; and

(c) the Environment Portfolio contracts register summary be noted.

RESOLVED: That 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.

Report ES16029

The Committee considered the report and recommended to the Executive that the recommendations outlined in the report be approved.