Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Cllr Terence Nathan, Cllr Sarah Phillips, and Cllr Catherine Rideout.

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 Friday 23^rd September 2016.

There were no questions to the Committee.

Report CSD16135

A petition with over 400 signatures was received on 14^th April 2016 from Carol Jonas on behalf of residents in Biggin Hill and surrounding areas calling for the Council to reconsider the decision to discontinue the Green Garden Waste collection site at Charles Darwin School. Full details of the petition were appended to Report CSD16135.The Portfolio Holder responded to the petition on 20^th April 2016, but the petitioners were not satisfied and wished to exercise their right to a hearing before Members.

As the petition had more than 250 verified signatures the lead petitioner or their nominee was entitled, under the Council’s Petition Scheme, to address the Committee for up to five minutes. Members could then choose whether or not to recommend any further action.

The Lead Petitioner was not in attendance to address Members. Following a short discussion, the Chairman moved that no further action is taken in response to the petition, seconded by Cllr Page. Comments from Cllr Melanie Stevens (Biggin Hill) were noted so they could be considered when scrutinising the draft Portfolio Plan next year and how the Green Garden Waste service can best evolve going forward within budget constraints. 

RESOLVED that no further action be recommended in response to the petition.

The minutes were agreed.

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 Friday 23^rd September 2016.

Two questions had been received for oral reply with one question received for written reply. 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 FSD16054

Based on expenditure and activity levels to 31st May 2016, the latest 2016/17 budget monitoring position for the Environment Portfolio showed a balanced budget.

Details were provided of the projected outturn with a forecast of projected spend against each relevant service area compared to the latest approved budget. Background to variations was also outlined.

A Member suggested that the problem of fly-tipping appeared to be worsening and asked if there had been any increase in expenditure as a result. Officers offered to look at relevant figures, including occurrences and tonnages from fly-tipping, and respond. 

RESOLVED that the Environment Portfolio Holder be recommended to

endorse the latest 2016/17 budget projection for the Environment Portfolio.

Report FSD16064

At its meeting on 20^th July 2016, the Executive agreed a revised Capital Programme for 2016/17 to 2019/20. Changes in respect of the Environment Portfolio were outlined and a revised programme for the portfolio presented.

Report FSD 16064 also included first quarter spend against the 2016/17 Portfolio Capital Programme budget and comments on individual schemes.

Additionally, details of the 2015/16 capital programme outturn for the Portfolio were included. A total of £998k net underspend from 2015/16 was re-phased into 2016/17 and as part of the first quarter monitoring exercise, £2,131k was re-phased from 2016/17 to 2017/18 to reflect revised estimates of when expenditure on the Beckenham Town Centre improvements scheme is likely to be incurred.

RESOLVED that the Portfolio Holder be recommended to note and confirm changes agreed by the Executive on 20^th July 2016.

Report ES16047

Consistent with the Council’s Local Implementation Plan (LIP) and a provisional formula allocation of £2.482m Transport for London (TfL) funding for 2017/18, approval was sought to develop a recommended list of detailed schemes for submission to TfL on 28^th October 2016. This would be based on a programme of formula-funded projects for 2017/18 as appended to Report ES16047. 

Ring-fenced funding would also be available to support other programmes including LocalTransport Priorities, Principal Road Maintenance, Bridges and Structures, and the Beckenham Town Centre major scheme.

All schemes would be subject to normal consultation with residents and Ward Members and Portfolio Holder decision.

Cllr David Cartwright (Mottingham and Chislehurst North Ward) noted that there appeared to be more automated bus arrival time indicators at bus stops in neighbouring areas of L B Greenwich and L B Lewisham. Officers would enquire with TfL on the level of bus stop indicators in L B Bromley compared with other boroughs. On the basis that indicators could be sited at stops within areas of greatest bus use, the Portfolio Holder understood there may have been discussion at TfL on financial capping which could have impacted the installation of indicators before L B Bromley had been reached. The Chairman suggested finding some specific examples in the borough where indicators should ideally be sited; alternatively, the matter could be raised at the next Public Transport Liaison meeting.  

Cllr Ellie Harmer (Plaistow and SundridgeWard) also highlighted a problem at Sundridge Park railway station. Cllr Harmer considered the side of the station secluded and poorly lit, the location having become a trouble spot with a drugs problem understood to be present nearby. The station exit was considered dangerous in the dark. Cllr Harmer asked how it might be possible to take her concerns forward so they could be best addressed; dealing with TfL had been difficult and there seemed no staff presence at the station. Officers offered to look into the problem and with further details from Cllr Harmer would take the matter forward.  

In response to a question from the Chairman concerning the Borough’s Cycling Programme, there was doubt on whether further one-off TfL funding would be available for the programme as its funding stream supporting the (former) Mayor’s Cycling Vision had now ceased. However, the proposed programme of formula-funded projects 2017/18 for LIP funding included cycling investment and this would continue. A Cycling Quietway route would be finalised in November 2016 and a further proposed Quietway might also be finalised although it had recently encountered design problems and might not qualify for TfL funding.   

RESOLVED that the Portfolio Holder be recommended to agree that:

(1)  the programme of schemes for 2017/18, outlined at Enclosure 1 to Report ES16047, be approved for submission to TfL; and

(2)  the Executive Director of Environment and Community Services, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder, be authorised to make post-submission changes to the programme to reflect necessary changes to  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19c

Report ES16038

Approval was sought to alter the design of the congestion relief and casualty reduction scheme at the junction of Sevenoaks Way and Main Road as implemented in 2014. There had been a significant increase in the number of vehicles turning right into Main Road, at times blocking north bound through traffic on Sevenoaks Way. With more than three vehicles waiting to turn right, a fourth vehicle protrudes into the path of northbound vehicles, often blocking the junction during peak periods. 

Following complaints (from the local Residents Association, Gray’s Farm school, and some parents) of no guard railings at the staggered crossing on Sevenoaks Way, south of Main Road, and this appearing to deter some parents from using the crossing and walking their children to school, it was proposed to remove the crossing and replace it with a straight direct crossing. By removing the central island for the staggered crossing the carriageway would then be widened to create two northbound lanes and the new crossing would also remove parental concern on waiting in the centre of a busy road.

Since Report ES16038 had been drafted,Ward Member comments supporting the proposals had been received. In commenting on the scheme, Cllr Page (Cray Valley East Ward Member in addition to Committee Vice-Chairman) offered her full support for the proposals. Cllr Page added that the double yellow lines along Main Road appeared not to extend far enough back to enable the filter to work properly. As such, officers would look to incorporate measures in the amended scheme design to accommodate Cllr Page’s comments.

RESOLVED that the Environment Portfolio Holder be recommended to:

(1)  approve the junction alterations at the location, as per plan 11245-301;

(2)  delegate to the Executive Director of Environment and Community Services, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder, authority to approve the scheme’s detailed design; and

(3)  agree that the scheme cost of £74k be funded from the TfL LIP budget for Congestion Relief Schemes for 2016/17.

Report ES16046

Following concerns from residents and Ward Members, a number of Penge roads have been identified with parking problems and informal consultation was undertaken on the level of support for local permit parking. A parking scheme for a road would only be considered where a majority of residents in the road considered it had a parking problem or might be adversely affected by a proposed scheme nearby. 

The consultation indicated that a majority of residents in a number of roads supported permit parking (i.e. Crampton Road, Kingswood Road, Phoenix Road, Lucas Road, Southley Street, Raleigh Road, Cottingham Road, Kingsdale Road and Kenilworth Road) and to progress a parking scheme it was intended to formally consult residents in those roads, particularly as a petition against any form of permit parking for a number of the roads had been received in 2011. Formal consultation would detail proposed changes, costs, Controlled Parking Zone times, location of bays, waiting restrictions (yellow lines) and local amendments for the scheme’s objectives.

For a number of other roads across the area, informal consultation indicated conflicting views on the need for permit parking, including a small majority against in St Johns Road, Wordsworth Road, and Royston Road, and a small majority supportive in Station Road, Torr Road, and Clevedon Road. Views from Barsons Close residents indicated an equal number in support and against. Further consultation would include a number of such roads providing mixed feedback; any scheme might directly impact residents and cause displacement, creating other issues that could impact views. 

Parking permits are not supported by residents of Penge Lane, Mosslea Road, Queen Adelaide Road, Montrave Road, Westbury Road and parts of the High Street, Penge as few parking problems are experienced. The roads would therefore be excluded from any scheme at this time.

A scheme would also need to consider other road users given the close proximity of Penge High Street and ensure that commuter parking is not displaced to other roads. As a result, additional Pay and Display parking is likely to be needed.

Welcoming the review, and supporting recommendations in Report ES16046, Cllr Peter Fookes (Penge and Cator) highlighted the level of consultation response, preferring to see a higher level of feedback in future consultations. Thanking officers for work to date, Cllr Kevin Brooks (Penge and Cator) highlighted that not all residents in the area were aware of the likely £80 cost of a parking permit operating in excess of four hours or for all day use. 

Members were advised that the consultation questionnaire was bland in order to gauge views on whether parking is a problem in Penge roads. Should a majority of residents in a road consider parking a problem, more detail on a proposed scheme could be provided in a second, more formal, consultation. Historically, response levels to consultations had been low, and a response rate above 20% was considered reasonable. The rate of response had not improved significantly with online consultation. The Portfolio Holder welcomed any Ward  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19e

Report ES16018

Footfall is high along the eastern footway of Elmstead Lane, between its junction with Walden Road and Grange Drive, due to the proximity of Elmstead Woods railway station, a school, and a bus stop. Currently, the footway is not made up to adoption standards and the Council is not responsible for its maintenance and repair. To adopt and make-up the footway, a First Resolution was sought under the Private Street Works Code, covered by the Highways Act 1980.

The Council originally proposed to construct a footway on the basis that it fell within the corridor of maintainable highway. This was challenged by owners of premises fronting Elmstead Lane but subsequently it was understood that all but one of the owner/occupiers of the eight properties fronting Elmstead Lane between Walden Road and Grange Drive accepted the necessity of a new, paved footway. In view of the challenge to the status of the land for the footway and ongoing opposition from an owner of one of the properties, legal advice referred to action under the Private Street Works Code as the most appropriate approach in the circumstances. This would allow the Council to carry out works in a street not adopted as highway and would enable an owner to raise an objection to the Council’s proposals on specific grounds contained in s.208 of the Highways Act 1980.

S.236 of the Highways Act 1980 permits the Council, as the Street Works Authority, to resolve to bear the whole of the cost of the street works, rather than recharge the whole or a portion of the cost to the frontage owners. In this instance, it was proposed to use Section 106 funding in respect of the Ravensbourne College development (provided to improve the footway area between Walden Road and Grange Drive, including the alighting point at the bus stop) for the cost of the works at £20k.

Members supported the recommendations in Report ES16018. It was intended to bring the Second Resolution for Portfolio Holder approval via the Committee’s meeting on 8^th November 2016.

RESOLVED that the Portfolio Holder be recommended to:

(1)  approve the layout of a footway on the eastern side of Elmstead Lane, between Walden Road and the northern boundary of number 36 Elmstead Lane, as shown on drawing number 11429-03 Rev A;

(2)  approve the layout of a footway on the eastern side of Elmstead Lane, between the northern boundary of number 36 to the junction with Grange Drive, as shown on drawing number 11429-05;

(3)  make a First Resolution under S205 (1) of the Highways Act 1980 in respect of Elmstead Lane as follows –

  The Council do hereby declare that the eastern footway of Elmstead Lane, between the junctions with Walden Road and Grange Drive is not levelled, paved, metalled, flagged, channelled, made good and lighted to its satisfaction and therefore resolves to execute street works therein, under the provisions of the Private Street Works Code, as set out in the Highway Act 1980.

  Schedule  ...  view the full minutes text for item 19f

Report ES16044

Following construction of the new restaurant terrace alongside Queens Gardens, Bromley, proposals were outlined for a new play area to replace the former maze at the Gardens. Intu had provided a sum of £60k which would be used to install the play area, including design, purchase and installation of play equipment, fencing and landscaping.

Following consultations with Intu Bromley and Ward Members, a rustic/naturalistic space was proposed to produce an imaginative and functional play space. Design and Build tenders had been sought to develop the project site with the aims of the project being:

·  to provide an imaginative, natural and coordinated play experience for children and young people within an existing public open space;

·  to create a play space that will please, excite, challenge and stimulate children’s imagination and senses, utilising the play space as well as the surrounding environment; and

·  to promote positive attitudes to children and young people in the community through play opportunities and providing a safe environment for play.

In discussion, Members were handed design images for the play area. It was the intention to use synthetic grass which would significantly help to protect the nearby restaurants from mud being walked on to floor areas during winter months.

Members supported the recommendation in Report ES16044.

RESOLVED that the Portfolio Holder be recommended to agree the installation of a new play area in place of the former maze at Queen’s Gardens, Bromley, funded from Intu’s £60k donation.

Report ES16048

Members considered alternative funding arrangements for highways maintenance.

Planned highways maintenance reduced reactive maintenance, improved value for money and customer satisfaction, reduced unplanned network disruption, and contributed to a reduced level of damage claims. As carriageways deteriorate through weathering and traffic, the requirement for protective or structural maintenance could be predicted with some accuracy.

Sustained annual investment had helped to keep the principal (A) road network in good condition. The non-principal (B/C) network had also been a revenue funding priority in recent years having a condition indicator of 3%. However, the unclassified road network had a road condition indicator of 17%.

Footways were in a better structural condition with the main causes of deterioration - root damage from street trees and over-running vehicles - both being effectively managed through reactive and minor works.

Although funding through revenue budgets had allowed non-principal and unclassified roads to be maintained in a stable condition, it had been insufficient for improvement so that expenditure on reactive works could reduce. Roads with the highest priority had been put forward for planned works programmes in accordance with expected budget provision.

Recent benchmarking with neighbouring boroughs showed that prices within the Council’s current Major Works contract for planned highway maintenance projects are at least 28% lower than similar recently awarded contracts. The Council’s contract has recently been extended to June 2018 and contract prices were anticipated to increase when the contract is re-tendered.  

To fund improvement works during the next two years and allow conditions to significantly improve in the short term using existing contract prices, £11.8m of upfront funding was proposed for release from capital receipts. The funding would allow revenue expenditure to reduce by £2.5m per annum for five years from 2017/18, at a total of £12.5m (£11.9m from planned works and £0.6m from reactive maintenance). This would be partly offset by a total reduction in treasury management income of some £167k over the five year period. After five years, the benefits of upfront funding would be reviewed and a decision taken on whether future funding is delivered from capital receipts (subject to future availability) or from revenue budgets.

The latest treatment survey suggested that future investment was best focussed on carriageway maintenance to obtain long-term benefits, with footway maintenance continuing to rely on reactive and minor works funding.

A proposed Working Group of the Committee would agree service levels and treatment options. Future work programmes funded by the investment would then be considered by the Portfolio Holder following the Committee’s scrutiny.

In discussion, it was confirmed that treatment priorities would normally depend on the extent of a road’s use. Cllr Samaris Huntington-Thresher (Chelsfield and Pratts Bottom) referred to a high number of unclassified roads in her ward, suggesting they might benefit from surface dressing. However, some surface dressings were not durable and could only be considered short term solutions; consideration of various treatment options could be considered by the Working Group. Given the current contract costs (and a reduced level of reactive  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20a

Report ES16042

Members considered the Committee’s Forward Work Programme and progress on requests made at previous meetings.

Details of Environment contracts from the Corporate Contract Register were also provided (as presented to the Contracts Sub-committee meeting on 24th August 2016) along with a summary of contracts having a total value greater than £50k (i.e. duration in years multiplied by annual value). The summary also covered changes since the Contract Register was produced along with other relevant information.

The On-Street Posters contract was now for tender with feedback due in mid-November. The position had also progressed for all other Portfolio contracts having a Red or Amber rating in August. A gate report for monitoring the landfill site at Coney Hill, Oxsted, would be presented to the Committee’s next meeting.

Concerning the outcome of tendering for Parking Services, officers were looking to present a report in November. If it was not possible to report to the Committee’s next meeting, a report could be considered by the Executive and Resources PDS Committee on 23^rd November 2016 with Environment PDS Members invited to the meeting.

As it was not possible for the Portfolio Holder to attend the Committee’s next meeting scheduled for 8^th November 2016, consideration was given to moving the meeting to 16^th November 2016. However, as at least three Members were unable to make this date it was agreed to proceed with the original 8^th November date.

Three Working Groups were established by the Committee at its previous meeting to cover Street Scene, Highways and Footways and Congestion. Memberships for the Street Scene and Highways/Footways Working Groups were confirmed and it was agreed that the Street Scene Working Group would meet on 11^th October 2016 at 5pm and 25^th October 2016 at 6pm. The Highways/Footways Group would meet after October followed by meetings of the Congestion Working Group. 

RESOLVED that:

(1)  the Forward Work Programme be noted;

(2)  progress concerning previous Committee requests be noted;

(3)  the Corporate Contract Register extract and commentary related to Environment Portfolio contracts be noted;

(4)  membership of the Street Scene Working Group comprise –

Cllr Ian Dunn, Cllr William Huntington-Thresher, Cllr Chris Pearce (Non-Committee Member), Cllr Sarah Phillips and Cllr Catherine Rideout (membership of the group would also remain open to other Committee Members);

(5)  membership of the Highways/Footways Working Group comprise –

Cllr David Cartwright, Cllr Ian Dunn, Cllr Samaris Huntington-Thresher, Cllr William Huntington-Thresher, Cllr Angela Page and Cllr Melanie Stevens.

The minutes were agreed.

Report ES16026

An update was provided on Section 106 (S106) Agreements where funding related to schemes involving highways, transportation mitigation, and landscape management and maintenance. 

The Executive and Resources PDS Committee had previously asked for such reports to be presented to PDS Committees.

The Chairman noted that sometimes S106 agreements can be tightly worded, not allowing for any subsequent change in plans for highway schemes, and it was agreed to raise this with the Development Control Committee. 

Members resolved to note progress in the use of funds received from S106 agreements along with S106 funds which were awaited. Recommendations were also made for the Executive Director of Environment and Community Services to have delegated authority for expenditure of S106 funds up to £20k; that S106 funds be used for suitable schemes that had or were being developed (tabled within Report ES16026); and that certain other funds tabled within Report ES16026 be earmarked for potential return to developers.

Report ES16049

Procurement options were presented for arboriculture services to maintain the Council’s tree stock across the borough. The current contract expired in July 2017.