Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Cllr Terence Nathan and Cllr Michael Tickner. Cllr Ellie Harmer also provided apologies for having to leave the meeting about 8pm.

Cllr Sarah Phillips declared an interest as Treasurer of the Friends of Croydon Recreation Ground (item 7a).

Cllr Melanie Stevens declared an interest as Chairman of the Chelsfield Residents Society (item 6c).

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, questions to the 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 Thursday 9th November 2017.

There were no questions to the Committee.

The minutes were agreed.

Concerning the reply to the second question from Mr Gibbons at the previous meeting, the Chairman understood there had been a delay in being able to pull together data to provide a full response to the question. However, it was understood the information would soon be available.

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 Thursday 9^th November 2017.

Six questions had been received – three for oral reply and three for written reply. Details of the questions and replies are at Appendix A.

Portfolio Holder decisions for pre-decision scrutiny.

Report FSD17086

Based on expenditure and activity levels to 30th September 2017, the latest 2017/18 budget monitoring position for the Environment Portfolio showed an underspend of Cr £575k with the controllable budget projected to be underspent by £531k at year-end.

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.

Concerning the Environment Commissioning Lots referred to at paragraphs 5.6, 5.11 and 5.13 of the report and at Appendix 1B, details of what the lots represent were tabled at the meeting and circulated in advance to Members.

Regarding a projected additional income of £390 for bus lane contraventions based on numbers to 30thSeptember 2017, the increased contraventions could be attributed to a change in location of enforcement cameras and changed monitoring arrangements.

Concerning a projected deficit from parking enforcement, the parking contractor, APCOA , had challenges recruiting and training Civil Enforcement Officers (CEOs) during initial mobilisation of the contract. The position appeared to have stabilised in September - suitable staff had been recruited with more officers on the street and performance has improved in the past couple of months.   

RESOLVED that the Portfolio Holder be recommended to endorse the latest 2017/18 budget projection for the Environment Portfolio.

Report ES17078

Identified as a congestion issue of medium severity by the Committee’s Congestion Working Group in 2009, options had been investigated to reduce congestion and aid traffic movement at the junction of Station Road with Beckenham Road, Red Lodge Road and Ravenscourt Crescent, West Wickham. Traffic volume had increased since 2009. 

Following extensive traffic modelling, junction realignment and safety audit, two possible options were selected comprising Option A with various alterations to the junction (drawing no. 12376-102 appended to Report ES17078) and Option B with various alterations to the junction along with a ban of right turn movements from Beckenham Road into Ravenswood Crescent (drawing no. 12376-101 appended to Report ES17078). Details of the two schemes and alterations were outlined along with details of existing traffic flow at the junction and modelling representing current operations at the junction and results for Options A and B (capturing a typical weekday morning peak flow i.e. 8 a.m. to 9 a.m.).

In light of the information provided, Option A was recommended. Although Option B presented a slightly better traffic flow, it was considered that the necessity to ban right turn movements from Beckenham Road into Ravenswood Crescent posed too many potential negative implications e.g. increased delays at the Station Road/A232 junction.

It was also proposed to improve access to West Wickham station as a secondary aspect of the project, including dropped kerbs and a refuge close to the width restrictions on Red Lodge Road and widening the footway to form a shared facility with cyclists on Beckenham Road. The project also aimed to deliver some public realm benefits to help revitalise the shopping parade and improve the local streetscape.

Estimated to cost £300k, the scheme would be funded from the LIP budget for Congestion Relief 2017/18. Any additional costs to maintain the improved traffic signals over the next ten years would be capitalised within the overall scheme cost.

Councillor Nicholas Bennett JP attended the meeting for this item representing West Wickham Ward Councillors. Cllr Bennett supported

Option A.

Taking extra (private) land to further improve the scheme i.e. provide sufficient width for a dedicated right turn lane from Beckenham Road was not considered viable due to cost (of the land). Cllr Bennett asked for details of the cost to be passed to West Wickham Ward Members. Using CPO powers to purchase private land could be investigated although extra costs might be added to the scheme. In recommendations to the Portfolio Holder, it was agreed to reflect the scheme cost being varied by plus or minus 30% to cover any CPO consideration. London Buses were also making a contribution to the cost of the scheme. The Chairman suggested that the consideration of a CPO to enhance the scheme should not, however, delay the scheme should it be concluded that the process would take many months.

Cllr Bennett was pleased the scheme included an informal crossing (tactile dropped kerbs and refuge) in Red Lodge Road. Cllr Bennett also suggested public consultation on the scheme  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32b

Report ES17091

From June 2005 to August 2016, a total of 15 collisions had occurred at the junction of Warren Road and Court Road (A224), including one fatal collision and three serious collisions. In view of their number and pattern, as well as safety concerns raised by Ward Members, the construction of a roundabout was proposed at the junction to improve road safety

Four design options were considered with details outlined in Report ES17091. The options were at the stage of feasibility study. Design of the recommended option (if approved) would require vehicle tracking assessments to check if vehicles are able to carry out all movements at the junction. Further investigation would also be made into statutory undertakers’ equipment at the junction prior to construction.  

The preferred option (Option C) comprised a compact roundabout layout, improving movement through the junction for vehicles on Warren Road with only one opposing traffic stream to manage before entering the junction. Vehicle speeds would also be reduced on Court Road to negotiate the junction. Some land take would be required on the north eastern (highway verge) and south western sides of the junction (land ownership unclear at present). The existing access into Rose Cottage might also need relocating subject to the owner’s agreement and a £20k allocation for the work had been included in the cost of the scheme. For  the value of collisions saved compared to intervention cost, Option C offered the highest First Year Rate Return with a return of 117%.

A number of BT cables, EDF cables, and Thames Water pipes run under the carriageway. Initial assessments of the plans suggest the cables and pipes should not be an issue but more detailed analysis of the information (and trial holes) would be necessary at detailed design stage.

Estimated to cost £148k, the proposal would be funded from the Casualty Reduction allocation in the 2017/18 LIP budget of £262k.

In discussion, the Chairman highlighted that issues at the junction are more than speed related e.g. sight lines, visibility, and drivers taking chances crossing Court Road. The proposals were thought to have a limited effect on  traffic flow.

To alleviate concern for access and egress from Rose Cottage, officers had two potential solutions which would be considered for the final scheme design. 

A Member also asked for the extent of hard standing to be softened in view of access to Chelsfield Village forming part of a conservation area. The Head of Traffic and Road Safety confirmed there would be minimal impact for the grassed area and would bear in mind there should be as little hard standing as possible. Highlighting a nearby bus stop and to help avoid traffic queuing on the roundabout, the Member also observed that buses loitering can cause a backlog of traffic into Warren Road.

The compact roundabout design would reduce vehicle speeds along Court Road including speeds at night time. Such designs were safer and best for cyclists. Any collision would not usually result in serious injury. For  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32c

Report ES17086

Proposals were submitted to increase the quantity and quality of cycle parking at Elmstead Woods Station. 

Existing cycle parking at the station was well used with some cycles also being locked to other street furniture. Southeastern had highlighted a number of bike thefts from the station in recent years possibly due to expensive bikes having to be chained insecurely given inappropriate facilities. Limited supply and poor facilities could also be supressing cycle to rail demand at the station. 

High quality cycle parking could contribute and support a predicted 70% increase in bike trips to the station over the next ten years, improving congestion and air quality, and reducing noise in the area. Approximately 70 covered two-tier cycle racks would be installed in a dedicated area with lighting and CCTV (an exact number of spaces and specification being determined by competitive tender). 

The project was estimated to cost £50k with £12k from the Cycle Parking budget and £38k from Station Access Schemes within 2017/18 LIP funding.

The Head of Traffic and Road Safety briefly reported Ward Member views on the scheme.

The Committee supported the proposals.

RESOLVED that the Portfolio Holder be recommended to approve a proposed investment of £50k for improvements to cycle parking facilities at Elmstead Woods Station.

Report ES17088

On 8^th February 2017 the Executive agreed the lotting structure and procurement route for the main Environmental Services contracts:

Competitive Procedure with Negotiations

Lot 1 - Waste Disposal

Lot 2 - Waste Collection

Lot 3 - Street Environment

Lot 4 - Parks & Grounds Maintenance

Restricted Procedure

Lot 5 - Arboriculture

Lot 6 – Highways Major Works, Street Lighting and Professional Services

Lot 7 – Highways Minor Reactive Works and Winter Services.

The procurement timetable assumed that tender documents for Lots1-4 would be advertised in April 2017 with Lots 5-7 in January 2018. However, the documentation had not been completed to a point where Notices can be issued and Report ES17088 outlined reasons for delay, reviewed the lotting strategy and considered the impact of the proposed Trust at Crystal Palace Park on Lot 4 (Parks Management and Grounds Maintenance contract). The report also outlined the proposed strategy for depots in the Borough, some of which would be retained for environmental services, with others potentially released for capital receipts. The report also considered any capital investment required at the sites. 

A new timetable had been produced for issuing tender documents for Lots 1 -4 to meet the April 2019 award date. In view of the Mayor of London’s requirement for waste collection/disposal specifications to complement waste policies in the Mayor’s draft Environment Strategy (including a vision for London being a zero waste city with 65% of municipal waste recycled), the earliest date on which Notices could be issued is 20^th December 2019. Tenders would then be returned mid-April with the first round of negotiations to be completed in six weeks (although consultation on any changed service levels could impact the timetable). On completing early negotiations satisfactorily, a final bid would be received in June 2017 with sufficient time then allowed to evaluate and recommend to Members. In the six month period  prior to 1^st April 2019 both parties would need to complete due diligence; the service providers would also need to make arrangements for contract mobilisation.

With tendering for Lot 5 (Arboriculture Services) completed in sufficient time, a three-month lead-in period would provide for contract mobilisation prior to April 2019.

Lots 6 to 7 – comprising Major and Minor Highways Works – would be tendered for an August 2018 start date rather than April 2019. Extending current contracts for the services beyond their current term to align with an April 2019 start could potentially expose the Council to external challenge, partly due to additional Capital works included, as a modification, to the existing contract. With a two-month contract mobilisation, award would need to be in place by May 2018. With supporting officers already fully utilised on Lots 1- 4, external consultants would need to prepare contract documentation (funded from existing resources).

If value for money, other areas of service delivery could be later included in the contract lots, the OJEU Notice including  provision for this e.g. CCTV, Pest Control, Stray and Abandoned Dogs, and Neighbourhood Officers.

With  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33a

Members received an officer presentation on a number of environment services for residents with a particular focus on improving customer service. The presentation covered:

•  services

•  contacts

•  the customer journey

•  understanding trends

•  improving the experience

•  reducing avoidable contact and

•  improving efficiency.

Under these headings consideration was given to Neighbourhood Management services (Waste Collection, Street Cleansing including Graffiti and Drainage, Grounds Maintenance and Parks Management, Highways Enforcement and Trees) including numbers of customer contacts made in 2016/17 for waste and non-waste matters and a breakdown of contacts by channel. A comparison was also provided between reporting channels in 2012/13 compared to 2016/17.

Further detail outlined the quantity of 2016/17 customer reports received hourly over a 24hr period  - most back office and Customer Service Centre reports being received between 9am to 5pm with online reports via Fix My Street (FMS) received more broadly during a 24hr period.

Following slides outlined the methodology of processing incoming reports. Details were also provided of Channel Shift and Channel ‘add’ for online waste and non-waste reporting from 2012. Levels of unjustified reports were highlighted for missed bin collections and street cleansing issues.

Further statistics highlighted reports of missed bin collections and non-waste matters by ward. 

How reports and data are used for management and service improvement was also outlined along with details of how ICT is used. FMS and eForms are used by the public to report online and each Neighbourhood Officer has an iPad for mobile working with access to CONFIRM Connect, Nautoguide, and CRM Mobile software. Management also used officer feedback from the review of Neighbourhood Management. 

Details of the PowerPoint presentation are at Appendix B.

Information additional to material in the PowerPoint slides was also conveyed in the presentation including points briefly summarised below:

·  other services also use FMS e.g. Street Lighting;

·  Grounds Maintenance, Street Cleansing, and Waste services are all covered by three local Neighbourhood Management  teams (West Area, Central Area, and East Area);

·  the high number of waste contacts received during 2015/16 can be attributed to a change in collection rounds and collection dates;

·  FMS was not available in 2012/13 (having been introduced at a later date) and the numbers of reports received per channel that year reflect this;

·  the majority of contacts are now made online;

·  more online coverage has seen an increase in the number of contacts and this can pose challenges for staff;

·  reports are now received every hour of the day through 24/7 online contact;

·  to report a waste matter (e.g. missed bin collection), a resident can complete an appropriate eform which feeds into the Council’s CRM system. The contractor then investigates and if the report is valid, the contact is classified a justified report (rather than unjustified);

·  FMS reports are directed to the Council’s CONFIRM system with the report then investigated and an online update provided to the reporter;

·  the ‘Hot Spot’ analysis slide identifies where two or more reports of missed bins have been received; 

·  officer  ...  view the full minutes text for item 34.

Report ES17080

The Committee had been asked to look at utility debt and BT debt in particular following concern expressed by the Executive and Resources PDS Committee.

The New Roads and Streetworks Act (NRSWA) and Traffic Management Act (TMA) gave the Council authority to manage activities of utility companies in the borough and to minimise congestion through the London Permit Scheme (LoPS) scheme. Additional repair costs for any defective reinstatement work by the companies are borne by the Council as Highway Authority. The Council charged utility companies for:

·  permits;

·  sample inspections (during works, following completion, and at the end of a two year guarantee period);

·  defects/ defective reinstatements (the Council charging utility companies for up to three additional inspections - a joint site inspection  to agree the defect, works in progress, and works completion);

·  other Fees (e.g. Fixed Penalty Notices for contravening permit conditions, charges for works exceeding the agreed programme and materials or traffic signs/barriers left on site).

In recent years most utility companies paid monies owed within the 30 day due period. However, BT Openreach had outstanding debt related to defective reinstatements and officers and BT Openreach had been working to resolve the issue. 

For individual invoices in dispute, payments are delayed until outstanding disputes can be resolved. Officers met BT Openreach in March 2017 and reasons identified for the delayed payments were summarised as:

·  non-attendance of BT Openreach at joint site meetings, resulting in ‘repeat defects’ issued by LBB – 1147 charges;

·  dates on paperwork and EToN (electronic transfer of notices) not aligning – 1652 charges;

·  non-attributable works not being agreed – 1118 charges; and

·  duplicate charges issued in error – 193 charges.

Draft invoicing introduced with utility companies in 2014 allows utilities to dispute any charges before a final invoice is raised thereby avoiding unnecessary invoice cancellation and payment delays. This resulted in significant improvement with most utility companies and agreed defect charges have been paid in a timely manner. BT had engaged with the process since April 2017 and charges related to the current financial year had to date been agreed and paid.

Although initially slow on progress with historic debt BT Openreach had made significant improvements since September 2017 when 46% of outstanding disputes had been agreed and BT would be making part payment to reflect this. BT Openreach and officers would also work through remaining historic charges within the next three months and a full breakdown of these was shown in Report ES17080 along with progress made to date.

Other utility debt (defects, inspections, permits and other fees) was also highlighted in the report as was the following table summarising total debt outstanding for all utility companies:

The majority of outstanding debt for 2017/18 related to invoices raised during the previous two months. Two of the utility companies had recently notified they had settled invoices totalling £150k, reducing the total debt owed by non-BT companies to £164k. BT Openreach had also recently agreed to settle amounts totalling £70,662, leaving an outstanding balance of  ...  view the full minutes text for item 35.

Report ES17079

In considering the Committee’s future Work Programme 2017/18, Members asked for the Council’s parking and street cleansing contractors to be invited to the Committee’s meeting on 30^th January 2018 for scrutiny.

For the working group (agreed at the previous  meeting) to consider efficiency savings and income generation, the Chairman highlighted a preference for the Group to meet as soon as possible before Christmas so that opportunity can be taken to feed ideas into tender specifications for the Environment Commissioning Programme. A meeting soon would also link to the presentation on customer service provided earlier in the agenda.

Concerning contracts, Report ES17079 advised that material under Part 2 proceedings outlined progress related to previous Audit recommendations concerning Street Works and Waste Services. Reference was also made in the Part 2 material to a brief update on matters related to the Parking Service and the issue of Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs).

RESOLVED that:

(1) the Forward Work Programme be agreed subject to the Parking and Street Cleansing Contractors being invited to the Committee’s meeting on 30th January 2018 for the Contractor Scrutiny item;

(2)  progress concerning Committee requests be noted; and

(3)  comments on the content of Appendix 3 to Report ES17079, provided under Part 2 proceedings, be noted.

The exempt minutes were agreed.

To consider Appendix 3 for the report on this item.

Members received details on progress related to audit recommendations on Street Works and Waste Services. Reference was also made to a brief  update on matters related to the Parking Service and the issue of Penalty Charge Notices.