Agenda and minutes

Apologies for lateness were received from Cllr Marlow. 

There were no declarations of interest.

The minutes of the meeting held on the 19th of January 2022 were agreed and signed as a correct record.

In accordance with the Council’s Constitution, questions that are not specific to reports on the agenda must have been received in writing 10 working days before the date of the meeting. Questions that are not specific to the agenda should have been received by the Democratic Services Team by 5pm on 7^th March

Questions specifically relating to reports on the agenda should be received within two working days of the normal publication date of the agenda.  Please ensure that questions specifically on reports on the agenda are received by the Democratic Services Team by 5pm on 15^th March.

There was one written question received from a member of the public to the Chairman. The response to this written question was disseminated to Members and to the questioner shortly after the meeting.

The responses to the written questions are appended to the minutes.

On the night, four oral questions from members of the public were heard and responded to by the Portfolio Holder. Sixty written questions had been received and the answers to these questions would be disseminated to Members and the public shortly after the meeting. 

The responses to the written and oral questions to the Portfolio Holder are appended to the minutes.

One oral question and been received from Cllr Kieran Terry.

The response to the oral question from Cllr Terry is appended to the minutes.  

CSD21141

A Member enquired when the item relating to Goddington Park would be presented to the Committee. The Director for Environment and Public Protection stated that it was not clear which committee this report would go back to. He would have a discussion with the Strategic Property Team first to clarify this.

A Member raised the issue of moving traffic contraventions and asked if it was the case that the cameras were now recording an increased number of people who were committing offences. The Director confirmed that this was indeed now the case, although the figures were not in line with projections. The Director clarified that the reconfiguration of the cameras had not yet been completed. The Member asked if there was better compliance and the Director responded and said he would look into this as he was not aware if this level of data existed currently.

RESOLVED that:

1) The Director for Environment and Public Protection would liaise with the Strategic Property Team to find out when the Goddington Park report would be presented and to which committee.

2) ) The Director for Environment and Public Protection would investigate the level of compliance with respect to moving traffic contraventions.

A Member referred to the South Eden Park Road Safety Scheme and said that in line with policy, a signalised crossing was required there. He also made reference to the ‘PV2’ figure noted in the report and asked what this meant in comparison with other crossing locations.

It was explained that the PV2 reference meant that if a crossing was going to be installed at this location, then a signalised traffic light crossing would be best. It was noted however, that these type of crossings were expensive to install and to maintain and so priority would be applied to casualty locations. South Eden Park Road was not classed as a priority casualty location.

Members expressed their thanks to the Chairman (Cllr William Harmer) for his Chairmanship and strong leadership.

RESOLVED that the Chairman’s Annual Report be noted.

A Member expressed the view that the Council's targets in terms of waste disposal and collection were quite stretching, which meant that the Council didn't always meet those targets; and he wondered what could be done to change this. The Head of Performance Management & Business Support, informed the Committee that in terms of waste arising/collection--the tonnes were decreasing to pre COVID levels over the last Quarter, however the performance thresholds would remain the same next year in line with the Portfolio Plan.

A Member wondered if the Committee could help in terms of any policy decisions concerning potential new ways of working (which may enable the Council to get back on track in terms of hitting its waste targets). A Member highlighted an experience that he recently had when he was driving around trying to dispose of cardboard. He experienced problems doing this, as multiple paper recycling bins were full. He suggested that an electronic chip be placed in the large recycling containers, which could then send a signal when they were full.

The Head of Neighbourhood Management  responded and said that the Council did have comprehensive collection schedules, but this sort of thing could be looked into and he asked the Member that had experienced the recycling issues to email him the details so that he could investigate further. He explained that the matter of using electronic chips had been trialled in 2005/2006 for street litter bins, but there had been problems with the technology. It was also the case that the possibility of using electronic chips was not part of the current Veolia contract. He pointed out that the Council could make a charge for large cardboard collections under the provisions of the Controlled Waste Regulations. 

A  Member suggested that a prize could be awarded to any young person that could come up with a plan to improve the waste collection service at the Council’s recycling banks and that this would be good for community engagement.

A Member commented that members of the public should be reminded to break up their cardboard for ease of collection and this could be highlighted in the Council’s magazine ‘Environment Matters’.

RESOLVED that the ECS Performance Overview Update be noted.

Portfolio Holder decisions for pre-decision scrutiny.

ES20169

The Assistant Director for Highways gave a brief introduction to the report and stated that in 2016 there had been a capital investment programme. The revenue budget had then been frozen for five years, but it was now coming back online from April 2022. It was therefore now the case that £2.5m was available for highways maintenance work which would be split between roads and pavements. Detailed surveys had been undertaken to prioritise where this work should take place and more data concerning this could be provided to Members if required. The report before the Committee requested the authorization to initially use £1.7m/£1.8m of the budget for the initial programme of works which had been subject to member consultation.

A Member noted that 17% of the highways currently required maintenance and a discussion took place as to whether or not the highways network was deteriorating, improving, or staying the same. The Assistant Director for Highways stated that ideally he would prefer the 17% figure to reduce to somewhere in the region of 10% which would provide a safer network, but more funding would be required to achieve this. It was probably the case that the overall condition of the carriageway had remained about the same.

A Member asked if footways were always replaced in a like for like manner. The Assistant Director responded that it was always the Council’s policy to do this and if Members were aware of any instances where this was not the case, please could they let him know so that he could investigate further. In such cases there could be an issue with root damage or utilities works.

A discussion took place as to whether or not the maintenance works would be reactive or planned and the Assistant Director said that there was a careful combination mix of planned and reactive works, but it was better if as much work as possible could be planned maintenance.

A Member asked if she could be provided with a detailed map which explained (with respect to her ward) which roads and sections of roads would be the responsibility of Bromley Council and which would be the responsibility of other councils. The Assistant Director for highways confirmed that this data could be provided.

It was confirmed that in terms of road maintenance, Bromley was now using warm asphalt in all cases and indeed Bromley was the first London borough to adopt this practise wholesale.

RESOLVED that:

1) The Portfolio Holder for Environment and Community Services agreed that the schemes listed in Appendix ‘A’ and Appendix ‘B’ be included in a programme of planned highway maintenance for 2022/23, to be undertaken by the Council’s existing highway term maintenance contractor.

2) The Portfolio Holder for Environment and Community Services agreed that the decision to include additional schemes in the Planned Highway Maintenance Programme be delegated to the Director of Environment & Public Protection, based on the results of further condition assessments.

FSD22029

Members noted the Capital Monitoring report and that the details outlined in the report had previously been agreed by the Executive.

RESOLVED that the Portfolio Holder notes and acknowledges the current position in respect of Capital Schemes, as agreed by the Executive on 9^th February 2022. 

FSD2 2025

A Member asked what the reason was for the underspend with respect to Street Environment. The Director for Environment and Public Protection said that he would investigate and find out. It was still the case that the Council was removing graffiti.

RESOLVED that the Environment & Community Services Portfolio Holder endorses the latest revenue budget monitoring for the Environment and Community Services Portfolio.

  .

ES20170

It was noted that this report was being provided as it had been promised at the previous ECS PDS meeting that a follow up report would be provided to assess suitable options for the junction reconfiguration at Albemarle Road and Westgate Road. It had been agreed that one of the options that would be considered would be the installation of a new mini roundabout. Officers had considered the various options and had recommended that ‘Option 1’ be implemented, which was the installation of a ‘Priority Junction’. This would mean that priority would be given to Albemarle Road, while the traffic from Westgate Road would have to give way.

The Assistant Director for Traffic and Parking explained some of the reasons for the officers’ recommendation, saying that the installation of the mini-roundabout could cause problems—it was quite likely that traffic from Albemarle Road approaching the mini-roundabout would not slow down and give way as it should--because of the historical layout. Also, with the limited space available, it was difficult to give adequate visibility to traffic approaching the mini roundabout, especially out of Westgate Road Bridge; this could lead to an increase in accidents. It had also been noted by officers that many pedestrians had been using this point to go along Westgate Road or to proceed to Beckenham, (along Albemarle Road) and also this was on a cycle route. The Assistant Director explained that mini roundabouts were not good for cyclists or pedestrians. He expressed the view that the ‘priority give way’ junction would be better for cyclists and pedestrians at this location.

The Assistant Director said that officers had previously recommended the installation of a mini roundabout at the junction of Scott’s Lane and Bromley Road—but in this case there was more space to do so and also there was an ongoing accident and injury situation that needed to be resolved.

Attending the meeting were Ward Councillors Stephen Wells and Michael Tickner who supported ‘Option 2’, which was for the installation of a mini-roundabout. 

Councillor Tickner explained that Albemarle Rd was a long straight road which drivers often used to avoid the A222. The road had been made one way when cycle lanes had been implemented and now it had been proposed to remove the cycle lanes and for two way traffic to be reintroduced. He stated that local residents were concerned about the speed of traffic along Albemarle Rd. He expressed the view that if the road was reinstated as it was, then traffic would continue to speed along the whole length of the road. In his view, the installation of a mini roundabout would be a good opportunity to slow down the speed and pace of traffic along the road.

Councillor Tickner said that local residents had seen much money spent on the installation of cycle lanes and now they would see additional money being spent on the removal of the cycle lanes. He felt it would be good for local residents to see something concrete that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 167d

ES20165

The report was presented to the Committee to outline the restoration proposals for the Bowie Bandstand within Croydon Road Recreation Ground, Beckenham, and to recommend that the scheme be added to the Council’s Capital Programme to enable works to proceed. 

The Council had been working with architects regarding the restoration of the bandstand to restore the facility for community use and to have regard to the bandstand’s heritage. It was anticipated that the project would be completed in April 2023. The Chairman said that this was a good news story.

The report had been submitted to the ECS PDS Committee for pre-decision scrutiny before being presented to the Executive for a final decision on 30^th March 2022.

RESOLVED that:

1) The ECS PDS Committee approved the proposals for the Bandstand at a cost of £236k including a contingency budget of £27k, and that the Committee approve the request to the Executive to add the project to the Capital Programme.

2) The Committee note that a five year maintenance plan had identified a liability of £18k which included redecoration works to uphold the restored condition of the bandstand, this would  be funded as set out in paragraph

3.13 of the report.

3)  Subject to agreement from the Executive, the Director of Environment and Public Protection be given delegated authority to award contracts for the Bandstand Restoration following the tendering process. 

4) Subject to Executive agreement as to recommendation 2.1.1, the Assistant Director of Carbon Management and Greenspace be given delegated authority to approve spend from the contingency fund.

.

ES20166

The report outlined plans for the EV Charging Pilot which would last for one year and which would include 45 charging points and 14 gullies installed across 12 wards. During this period, several different charging solutions would be tested. The results of the pilot would assist in determining how the roll out of electric vehicle charging points would take place going forward. A discussion took place concerning the selection criteria for the pilot scheme. A Member asked if the Chislehurst Ward could be included in the pilot going forward and the Carbon Programme Manager said he would investigate if this was possible.

A discussion took place as to why (as detailed in Fig 1 of the report) in some cases the ‘secondary utilisation’ was greater than the number of chargepoints and if the Council would be affected by staffing constraints. Members noted that two of the options under consideration would be part supplier funded (25%) and part funded by ORCS (On Street Residential Chargepoint Scheme—75%). Other operators would be 100% supplier funded; it had not been determined yet which option would be pursued. The Committee discussed how the installation of gullies and charging points could affect access to scarce parking spaces. 

The Chairman asked how many off street charging points existed in the borough—he was informed that this data had been requested prior to the meeting but had not been made available yet.

Members discussed legal matters relating to the user agreement and what the consequences would be for noncompliance. It was noted that interested parties would be asked to sign and comply with a user agreement, but this would be an informal agreement in the sense that it would not be legally binding.

The Chairman enquired about time scales moving forward. Members were informed that the installation of the pilot electric charging points was anticipated to commence in Autumn 2022. Results would then be analysed from winter 2023 onwards and it was intended that a follow up report on the results of the pilot would come back to the Committee in the Spring of 2024. The Chairman commented that this was quite a long time to wait and it may be the case in the future that LBB should move forward (even without the full data) with the project if the demand from the public was high. This could help residents with the cost of living if fuel costs were high. Of course, before moving forward the matter would be brought back to Committee first for scrutiny. 

A Member highlighted that there could be cases where members of the public applied for the installation of an EV charging point simply to get a designated parking bay and he wondered if they should be charged for that parking bay. The Committee was briefed that  the EV charging points would not be individual bays and this would be made clear on the user agreement.

A Member and the Chairman expressed the view that the installation and de-commissioning costs were high.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 170.

ES20163

The Committee noted that the air quality figures for 2020 were impressive. The question was raised as to whether or not this improvement was because of the Covid pandemic. The Director for Environment and Public Protection commented that the reduction in emissions was probably at least in part related to the COVID pandemic in that during this period pollution levels had decreased primarily because of the reduced volume of traffic. The Portfolio Holder commented that although this was probably the case, it was equally true that there had been a long term trend showing an improvement in Bromley’s Air Quality.

Members noted that Asthma UK had commented that Bromley had the best air quality of all London boroughs.

A discussion took place concerning the number and positioning of air quality monitors within the borough and the Portfolio Holder stated that the air quality modelling that was currently taking place within the borough was good at predicting air quality across the whole of the borough; resultingly the Council did not need to invest in extra monitoring points.

The Director stated that an Air Quality Action Plan update report had been factored into the work programme and it was a possibility that this would come back to the Committee in September 2022.

The Chairman raised the matter of litter picking. Many residents were keen to do this to clean up their streets but were put off by the fact that in order to obtain purple sacks from the Council they needed to go through a registration process first. The Chairman expressed the view that this seemed to be an added level of bureaucracy which deterred members of the public and he asked for the registration process to be removed and this was agreed by the Committee.

RESOLVED that the Draft ECS Portfolio Plan be noted and that the registration process for purple sacks be ended. 

ES20168

The introduction to the report was provided by the Technical Support and Market Manager. He informed the Committee that Bromley Council had been a key development partner with ‘Society Works’ in developing and implementing the online waste services and self-service green garden waste portal used within FixMyStreet. Bromley had been shortlisted as a finalist at the 2022 Local Government Chronicle awards for the public sector/private partnership category with its service provider ‘Society Works’ in terms of customer experience with respect to waste services..

The Chairman expressed the view that this was a good service overall, had been a huge success and was basically invaluable.

The Technical Support and Market Manager said that going forward it may be possible to extend the scope and functionality of FMS (Fix My Street) to integrate with other core services such as waste services, litter bins and recycling bins. A Member requested that the service be extended if possible to include issues in car parks.

A discussion took place concerning the matters highlighted in section 3.26 of the report where the Council was seeking to enhance the FixMyStreet software so that it could also deal with cross boundary matters and issues that were the responsibility of Housing Associations. There could also be a link to the Environment Agency.

The Chairman said that it would be good if one of the ‘invisible layers’ that was factored into the software going forward was information relating to individual ward boundaries so that Members could be better informed as to issues occurring in their specific wards across the board. He offered to provide the mapping files for ward boundaries to support this. The Technical Support and Market Manager responded by saying that this type of functionality existed already and that it would be good to provide training on this functionality to all Councillors post-election. 

RESOLVED that

1)  The report, the direction of travel and the FMS Roadmap be noted.

2) A FMS update be brought back to the Committee in March 2023

ES20156

The Committee heard that the cost to the Council of removing fly tips had been agreed at the contract tender stage and so the price was fixed regardless of the number of fly tip removals undertaken. It was the intention of the Envirocrime Section to use data and intelligence to focus activities in fly-tipping hotspots. This was detailed in the Fly-Tipping Action Plan. Historically, departmental underspends had been be used to fund fly-tipping projects and initiatives and any further projects would be funded from the allocated earmarked reserves. Officers were analysing data from 2016 to look at trends that would help with investigations.

The Head of Neighbourhood  Management stated that the Council was good at clearing fly-tips but had not been so good at investigating. With the appointment of a new (and very experienced) Street Enforcement Manager, this was expected to improve. In LBB, the main type of fly-tipping were fly tips on the highway, ‘household other’ and small van loads. The Assistant Director of Environment advised the difficulty with proceeding to prosecution was due to insufficient evidence and in some cases a lack of information from witnesses. Reference was made to the ‘Your Waste is your Responsibility’ campaign that had been organised  recently by Veolia in conjunction with an officer working group which had following monitoring been successful in reducing fly tipping incidents; there were plans to build on this going forward.

The Chairman expressed concern regarding the growth in ‘man and van’ services for waste collection. He was concerned that many of these were unregistered to save on costs. The Head of Neighbourhood Management stated that he wanted to see an increase in the number of waste carrier stops (working in conjunction with the police and LBB Public Protection). There was a need to seek out offenders and create a ‘rim of steel’ around Bromley. The Chairman suggested the occasional use of tracking devices.

A Member raised the issue of businesses using recycling banks for the disposal of business waste. The Head of Neighbourhood  Management responded and said that a ‘Section 34’ officer would be appointed to visit businesses and enforce compliance with the proper disposal of commercial waste. 

A Member referenced Item 5 on the appendix to the report. This was in respect to the installation of high security drop bollards at the end of Star Lane. He asked when this would be achieved. The Head of Neighbourhood  Management responded that the installation should be actioned in the next few months—implementation had been complicated by the fact that there was a Cellnex mobile phone mast in the middle of Star Lane and access was required to this for maintenance purposes.

A Member asked if details of the top 10 sites for fly tipping in Member’s Ward areas  could be circulated to Members. The Assistant Director of Environment advised this would be made available by the Technical Support and Market Manager using intelligence from FixMyStreet.

RESOLVED that the Fly-Tipping Action Plan Update be noted. 

ES20159

Members noted the updates on the report regarding the Videalert and Confirm contracts. Members noted that the Fix My Street contract had been extended.

RESOLVED that the ECS Contracts Register report be noted.

ES20161

RESOLVED that the ECS Risk Register report be noted.

The Committee noted the Part 2 (confidential) update with respect to the Contracts Register.

RESOLVED that the Part 2 Contracts Register update be noted.