Agenda and draft minutes

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Josh Coldspring-White. Councillor Hannah Gray attended as substitute. Apologies were also received from Councillor Colin Hitchins.

The Chairman expressed his thanks for the work undertaken by the former Portfolio Holder for Environment,  Aisha Cuthbert. He also expressed his thanks for the work undertaken by Councillor Thomas Turrell in his role as Executive Assistant to the Portfolio Holder for Environment. The Chairman further expressed his thanks to members of the committee, officers and the Vice Chairman. He also thanked Councillor Hannah Gray for attending the meeting as a substitute, and to Assistant Director (Carbon Management and Greenspace) Hannah Jackson, who was attending the meeting as the senior officer in the absence of the Director of Environment and Public Protection.

Councillor Kathy Bance declared a non-pecuniary interest with respect to item 11d on the agenda. 

Councillor Alison Stammers declared an interest because she had signed the petition for the Chislehurst War Memorial that was presented to Council in February 2022, before she was elected.

The minutes of the meeting held on 23^rd January 2024 were signed and agreed 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. This would have been 5pm on 28^th March 2024.

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 7^th March 2024.

One oral question from the public was received and is appended to the minutes.

No oral questions from Councillors were received.

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. This would have been 5pm on 28^th March 2024.

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 7^th March 2024.

Five written questions from the public were received.

One written question was received from Councillor Alison Stammers.

The questions and responses are appended to the minutes.  

CSD24041

A Member asked if an update regarding Community Toilet Schemes and toilets in parks could be incorporated into the Work Programme. She said it was a common complaint from members of the public that the toilets in parks either did not exist, or were not up to standard. She commented that previously, Kelsey Park was regarded as Bromley’s flagship park, but now it was looking  rundown. She asked if improvements to Kelsey Park could also be added to the Work Programme. She wanted to see some restorative work undertaken and improvements made in an attempt to restore the park to its former status.

A Member commented that the Council's Carbon and Net Zero Action Plan was not widely known about, and asked if a briefing could be produced so that Members could better understand the current position. She asked if the briefing could explain where the Council was aiming to get to, and how it was hoping to get there. She asked if this could be added to the Work Programme.

The Assistant Director (Carbon Management and Greenspace) responded and said that the Net Zero Action Plan was published on the Council Website. A report was on the work programme for November 2024 and would provide an update on the Council’s progress with respect to this Plan.  A Member asked that if a briefing was produced, then could it be disseminated to the whole Committee. The Assistant Director responded and said officers would endeavour to bring out and explain all the relevant information in the next report. The Chairman suggested that this process be followed, and if further clarification was required, then possibly a Teams meeting could be run as a follow up if required.

RESOLVED that the following items be added to the Work Programme:

1) An update on the Community Toilet Scheme and Toilets in Parks.

2) An update on how the general condition of Kelsey Park could be restored and improved. 

There were no questions regarding the update from the Environment Portfolio Holder.

The update has been appended to the minutes.

RESOLVED that the update from the Portfolio Holder for Environment be noted.

Members were informed that the next presentation of ‘Driven by Consequences’ would take place the following Tuesday at Hayes School at 8:30am. It was a presentation that was highly recommended by the Portfolio Holder for Transport Highways and Road Safety. It was clarified that this was a presentation which was not for members of the public and it was left for the schools to organise. It was primarily geared towards the sixth form and it was anticipated that the presentation would be given to around 240 schoolchildren.

A Member referred to the £455k funding that had been received from the Department of Transport. She said that it was important that it be communicated clearly to the public that this funding was not only for pot-holes, but had been allocated as capital expenditure for road-re-surfacing. The Portfolio Holder for Transport, Highways and Road Safety confirmed that a press release to that effect would be put on the Council Website imminently. This was a DfT initiative and pot-hole funding was separate. 

RESOLVED that the update from the Portfolio Holder for Transport, Highways and Road Safety be noted. 

ES20367

A Member noted that there was an improvement plan in place with respect to Riney. She asked what sort of improvement could be expected by June. The Assistant Director for Highways said that he hoped the current backlog of 200 jobs would be reduced to just a handful. The Committee was informed that the claiming of low service damages had been put on hold until June. A Member noted that the previous minutes had indicated that Riney would be up to speed by April 1^st. It was further noted that any compensation claimed because of pot-hole damage would not be borne by the Council, but it would be borne by the contractor.

The Assistant Director for Highways informed the Committee that Riney had now appointed a new management team. The Council were doing their best to encourage Riney to work better and smarter. Some frustration was expressed by the Committee regarding Riney’s performance; the Chairman said that the Council had to manage things as best they could via the existing contract while officers explored options for delivery at the end of the existing contract in 2026.

A Member raised the matter of re-painting the white lines in roads, and the fact that this work was also not being completed within agreed timescales. The Assistant Director explained that re-lining was sub-contracted out to another contractor. He felt that after a slow start, the sub-contractor now had a better understanding of what was required.

Members discussed the matter of KSIs. A Member asked that information should be provided in reports to show what positive action was being undertaken to reduce KSIs. Councillor Alisa Igoe asked that it be noted that she was of the view that the KSI projection of 124 was appalling. 

A Member asked the Assistant Director for Highways what was the oldest pothole on register. The Assistant Director responded that he would find out and report back. The Member responded and said that he was aware of a pot-hole that had been outstanding for 431 days. He wondered what other pressures could be put upon the contractor, as it was Ward Councillors that  got the blame for pot-hole issues. The Assistant Director responded that the Director of Environment and Public Protection had been involved in high level discussions with Riney’s management and also that the low service damage penalties were there to encourage good performance. A Member requested that outstanding work be shared more widely with Members and not just with the Portfolio Holder. 

It was noted that at the June meeting, there would be a report regarding options for the future Highways Maintenance Contract. It was expected that any lessons learnt from issues relating to the current contract would be taken into account  when drawing up the new contract. The Committee was informed that in this regard, there would be two reports coming to the Committee, one would be in June and there would be another report which would come either in the autumn or  ...  view the full minutes text for item 95.

Portfolio Holder decisions for pre-decision scrutiny.

FSD24019

It was queried that with respect to traffic and road safety, if any of the excess income showing in the Budget Monitoring report could be used for road safety. The Assistant Director for Traffic and Parking clarified that this income had already been considered and had been taken account of in the Council's Budget. A Member asked if there was a list of CCTV cameras near schools that could be disseminated. The Assistant Director for Traffic and Parking said that the list could be shared privately if required. It was explained that once compliance had been achieved in a particular area, then the camera would be moved to another area. In certain areas they did not work and then foot patrols were used.

A debate took place as to whether dummy cameras could be used in an effort to save on costs. The Assistant Director for Traffic and Parking said that this could be considered, but that in some cases it could have a counterproductive affect. The Portfolio Holder for Transport, Highways and Road Safety was opposed to the use of dummy cameras, stating that in his view it undermined the purpose of having the cameras installed in the first place. A discussion took place about the level of charging that the Council was making for its car parks. The Assistant Director for Traffic and Parking said that the Council was trying to be competitive, prices were reviewed regularly, and a change of pricing could be recommended if required.

RESOLVED that:

The Portfolio Holder for Environment, and the Portfolio Holder for Transport, Highways and Road Safety, be recommended to endorse the 2023/24 Revenue Budget Monitoring position for the Environment & Community Services Portfolio.

FSD24025

A Member referred to the £131k that was noted for capital expenditure with respect to Beckenham Town Centre improvements. She asked if there was spare funding available to cover the cost of jet washing and a street cleaning machine. The Assistant Director for Traffic and Parking responded and said that sadly he did not think that funding for this was contained in the budget figures outlined in the report. The figures noted in the report were somewhat historic and may not be a true reflection of what was currently available. He stated that for the June meeting he was hopeful of producing a more realistic and updated figure. It was also noted that there were ongoing revenue costs for enhanced street cleansing which could not be met from the capital expenditure code; in Bromley Town Centre this enhanced cleaning was funded by the Business Improvement District and not the Council.

Reference was made to the paving in Bromley Town Centre and it was commented that utility companies would often remove the granite paving in the course of their work and just replace it with blobs of tarmac. The Assistant Director for Highways responded and said that the utility companies had six months to make good repairs and return them to their former condition.

A discussion took place regarding residential cycle parking and cycle parking at train stations.

RESOLVED that the Portfolio Holders be recommended to note and acknowledge the changes to the Capital Programme agreed by the Executive on 7th February 2024. 

ES20358

It was noted that generally speaking, the public consultation was in favour of the scheme, as were the Ward Councillors. It was also the case that an extensive objection had been received, and a Member asked how officers were responding to it. There were a number of matters raised in the objection including issues concerning ‘Copenhagen Crossings’ and the quality of the paved crossings. The Principal Transport Projects Manager said that he had responded to the objections. It was commented that the scheme had many different facets to add value. It had been independently audited and there was an audit trail.   

A Member stated that she was not in favour of parking spaces being on the same level as the kerb and that the kerb should be delineated. She felt that this could be a safety issue. The Principal Transport Projects Manager said that he would consider this, as everyone involved wanted the scheme to be safe.

A Member asked how many people had filled in the consultation. It was noted that the consultation results had been displayed on the Bromley Council Website. Members were informed that there had been 210 responses to the consultation and 117 of these were in favour of the bus lane. 154 people responded to say that they were in favour of the Copenhagen Crossings. The Assistant Director for Traffic and Parking confirmed that the majority of respondents were local residents and that TfL were investing in the scheme to improve traffic flow. A Member expressed some concern as to whether the scheme had been too rushed and was further concerned that Anerley Hill could be clogged up. He said that he had serious concerns and was sceptical of TfL schemes. He wanted to know ‘what good looked like’ as it was not mentioned in the report. He said that the scheme was a possible waste of public money and so would not be supporting it. 

A Member asked if this was just a scheme to improve TfL bus routes and was nothing to do with reducing KSI figures. The Assistant Director for Traffic and Parking stated that meetings had been held with previous ward councillors who wanted to investigate certain issues and to improve traffic flow and so the scheme had evolved from those discussions. The Principal Transport Projects Manager explained that as well as improving traffic flow, there were other improvements and safety issues incorporated into the scheme, particularly at junctions.  The scheme would also improve the reliability and predictability of buses and would be a platform for other improvements. The Assistant Director for Traffic and Parking said that this was not a TfL scheme. The Council had asked TfL to consider the proposals and provide funding for the scheme and it was more than just a bus route. The new electric buses would use the proposed new bus lanes.

The Portfolio Holder for Transport, Highways and Road Safety said that the scheme incorporated many improvements and was a worthy scheme. He  ...  view the full minutes text for item 97b

ES20371

The Traffic Engineering Manager and the Assistant Director for Traffic and Parking introduced the report and explained the difficulties experienced by pedestrians in trying to cross the junction by the Chislehurst War Memorial. It was acknowledged that this was not exactly the solution that the pubic wanted, but it would provide a sensible and safe crossing alternative which was deliverable. The three Chislehurst Ward Councillors attended to support the proposal.

Councillor Alison Stammers explained that this matter was a key issue in the 2022 local council elections and so it was right that this was a matter that the Ward Councillors should support and follow through. She said that crossing by the Memorial was dangerous, especially for the elderly and those with mobility issues. The vicinity around the crossroads was used by approximately 2500 schoolchildren, as well as being a key bus and school interchange. Members heard that there had been numerous previous attempts to deliver solutions at this junction and they had all failed for various reasons. One had failed because it would have involved the moving of a utility service which would have cost in the region of £950k. Another proposal had failed because of a lack of support from affected land owners. It was important to note that this proposal was supported by the Council, TfL and by the landowners. Councillor Stammers said that although the scheme was in a sense sub-optimal, it would nevertheless provide two safe places to cross on two arms of the junction. Pedestrians would now be able to cross Royal Parade safely.

There were four areas of concern that had been raised for consideration by local residents:

a) Local residents had requested the provision of a ‘yellow box’ on the Kemnal Road side of Bromley Lane. This would be reviewed.

b) A lay-by for the bus stop: this was not supported by TfL.

c) A signalised crossing on Centre Common Road: this would be addressed in the future.

d) There was concern regarding the potential loss of 8 parking bays on Royal Parade. This was a particular area of concern for local traders. This would be investigated by officers at the detailed design stage.

Councillor Stammers concluded by saying that the Chislehurst Ward Councillors supported the proposal, and that the funding from TfL would be lost if it was not used. 

Councillor Igoe asked that her name be recorded in the minutes regarding her observations. She said that she had recently spent 45 minutes observing the movements of the children in the vicinity. She also remarked that there were no bus stops marked in the design plans. Councillor Igoe commented that she had noticed that at bus stop ‘P’ (on Centre Common Road, coming from Chislehurst towards Petts Wood) many children got off the bus there and ran diagonally across the junction. She further observed that the bus then turned left and right into a bus pound This was a safer place to get off and cross, rather than get off  ...  view the full minutes text for item 97c

ES20370

Members noted the report which suggested that a working group was formed to review the current Vehicle Crossover Policy to make sure that it was fit for purpose.  Some members of the committee volunteered to be on the Working Group, and this was noted by the Portfolio Holder for Transport, Highways and Road Safety who would chair the group.

RESOLVED that the Portfolio Holder for Transport, Highways and Road Safety be recommended to endorse the proposal to establish a working group to consider future policy changes and agree membership.

ES20372

The Assistant Director for Highways said that if required, the  surveys undertaken as part of the road maintenance strategy could be shown to Members. The Portfolio Holder informed Members that major re-surfacing work was planned for College Road in July which would require Traffic Orders.

RESOLVED that the Portfolio Holder for Transport, Highways and Road Safety be recommended to agree:

1) That the schemes listed in Appendix ‘A’ be included in a programme of planned highway maintenance for 2024/25, to be undertaken by the Council’s existing highway term maintenance contractor.

2) That the decision to include additional schemes in the programme be delegated to the Director of Environment & Public Protection, based on the results of further condition assessments.

3) That the additional grant funding received from the Department for Transport is utilised to improve the condition of the borough’s principal road network. 

ES20359

Clarification was provided that ‘Confirm’ (contract reference ID 6248) was the asset management system used for highways, arboriculture and other environment services. It was used to help manage and organise the workflow in these areas. It was further noted that Croydon Recreation Ground was referenced although the contract had expired; the Assistant Director (Carbon Management and Greenspace) clarified that this contract had now been extended.

RESOLVED that the Contracts Register report be noted.

ES20366

RESOLVED that the ECS Risk Register Report be noted.