Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Harry Stranger. Councillor Keith Onslow attended as substitute.

Apologies were received from Dragos Puiu from Bromley Youth Council.

Councillor Alison Stammers declared an interest as the Secretary of the Friends of Chislehurst Recreation Ground.

Councillor Chloe Jane Ross declared an interest as the founder of Beckenham Green Friends and had submitted a successful application for the Jubilee Parks Fund for the Green.

CSD23093

Members noted the report concerning the appointment of a new co-opted member from Bromley Youth Council.

RESOLVED that Dragos Puiu be appointed as a non-voting Co-opted Member of the Environment and Community Services PDS Committee for the 2023/24 municipal year, for the consideration of Part1 (public) reports only.

The minutes of the meeting held on the 16th of March 2023 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 submitted to the Democratic Services Team by 5pm on 15^th June.

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 regarding reports on the agenda are received by the Democratic Services Team by 5pm on 23^rd June.

Members of the public can ask ONE question, and should indicate if the question is for ORAL response at the meeting or for WRITTEN response.

There were no questions addressed to the Chairman.

One oral question from a member of the public was received for the Portfolio Holder for Transport, Highways and Road Safety.

One oral question was received from a member of the public for the Portfolio Holder for Sustainability, Green Services and Open Spaces.

The questions and responses will be published on the Council website.

Four oral questions to the Portfolio Holders were received from Members.

The questions and responses will be published on the Council website.

Twenty two written questions to the Portfolio Holders were received from members of the public.

The questions and responses will be published on the Council website.

CSD23092

A Member asked why the electric vehicle charging report was not showing on the work programme. The Committee was informed that this report would most likely be allocated to the March 2024 meeting.

RESOLVED that the matters arising and work programme report be noted and that the EV Charging Report be allocated to the March 2024 work programme.

Members noted the update that had been circulated by the Portfolio Holder for Transport, Highways and Road Safety. A Member said that usage of Council car parks had decreased by 10% in Chislehurst during April and May since the introduction of the RingGo cashless parking machines. She stated that businesses were concerned that the introduction of the RingGo machines were affecting footfall and that to review the situation after six months would be too late. She asked if a single machine that accepted contactless payments could be installed in the main car park in Chislehurst, prior to the six month review. She estimated that the cost of this would be between £7k-£8k. The Portfolio Holder’s response to this was ‘no’ and he expressed the view that more people were now using RingGo across the borough.

A Member commented that by inputting car details into RingGo, the App would also be able to record the emissions data for that vehicle. She asked if this data would be used by the Council. The Portfolio Holder responded and said that there were no plans for the Council to use this data. 

A Member stated that there were no public signs displaying the charges for using RingGo and asked if signs could be installed which would explain the charges. The Portfolio Holder responded and said that the Council were working on producing new signage which would be designed in-house. He also said that there were already signs in the main car parks displaying the charges.  A discussion took place as to whether or not charges were displayed where there was on street parking.

The Vice Chairman asked what was the estimated cost savings with the introduction of RingGo. The Portfolio Holder responded and said the estimated cost savings were in the region of £1m.

The Portfolio Holder invited Members to a presentation that was due to take place at Langley Park Boys School on the 7th of July. The presentation was called, ‘Driven by Consequences’ and was particularly aimed at sixth formers.

The Portfolio Holder informed the Committee that soon he would be going up a lamppost whilst attending the switch over of the last street light in the Borough to LED. The estimated savings for the Council in terms of the LED switch over was approximately £1m a year, alongside the reduction of carbon emissions.  He paid tribute to his predecessor, Councillor William Huntington-Thresher, who had done much of the hard work to make this possible.

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

An update was provided by the Portfolio Holder for Sustainability, Green Services and Open Spaces who said that the anti-littering campaign with idverde was going well.

Members were introduced to Jane Askew, the new Parks Officer, with specific responsibility for the administration of the Jubilee Grant. The Portfolio Holder paid tribute to Dean Laws for his excellent work in respect of prosecuting fly tipping offences. Regarding the idverde contract, the Portfolio Holder updated the Committee and said she was now having fortnightly meetings with the Managing Director of idverde to ensure that contractual obligations were improving and being met. 

It was noted that the Tree Inspection Programme had not been affected. Backlogs were being dealt with on a priority basis. Recruitment was underway for two new Tree Officers.

A Member expressed concern for the remaining Tree Officers as LBB currently only had three and the normal quota was five. She asked if the Council was offering the correct remuneration in order to successfully recruit to the posts. The Director for Environment and Public Protection stated that the Council played close attention to market trends in this regard.

A Member asked for an update on the situation regarding the trees that were cut down in Penge and it was reported that the Planning Enforcement Team were collaborating with the police to prosecute. There was an ongoing investigation where details and evidence was being gathered. The Member asked how the 131 trees in Penge could be replaced. The Director responded and said the Council were looking at the possibility of accessing funding from the Woodland Grants Scheme in order to enable the planting of new trees.

RESOLVED that the update from the Portfolio Holder for Sustainability Green Services and Open Spaces be noted.

Regarding the format of Performance Overview reporting, it was suggested that a document should be produced simply focusing on items that were rag rated as red. The Director said this was a possibility that would be looked into.

A Member noted the red alert with respect to highway maintenance and queried  the level of claims against the Council. The Director responded and said that the majority of claims would be dealt with and paid out by Riney. The Committee was informed that on average there were normally around 250 claims per year, but these had doubled last year to 460. A Member asked about the level of damages paid out for personal injury claims. The Assistant Director for Traffic and Highways responded that no claims had been received for personal injury. A Member commented that she was aware of a cyclist who had made a personal injury claim for an incident in the Chislehurst Ward because he had broken his collarbone after a cycling accident caused by a pothole.

A Member stated that TfL and the Mayor were not paying the Council properly to repair roads and that the Council had to pay for reactive maintenance. He said that the Council was repairing TfL roads and not getting any reimbursement.

RESOLVED that the ECS Performance Overview update be noted.

Portfolio Holder decisions for pre-decision scrutiny.

CSD22140

Members noted the report regarding the appointments to the Countryside Consultative Panel and the Leisure Gardens and Allotments Panel.

It was noted that two amendments were required with respect to nominations for the Countryside Consultative Panel. The Chairman informed the Committee that Councillor Andrew Lee would be replaced by himself and that Councillor Thomas Turrell would be replaced by Councillor Adam Grant.

RESOLVED that the Portfolio Holder be recommended to agree the appointments to the Countryside Consultative Panel and the Leisure Gardens and Allotments Panel--subject to the amendments noted above.

FSD23040

It was noted that based on the information available at the end of December 2022, there was a reported £549k underspend. This later repositioned to a £200k underspend--which was not unexpected on a £40m budget.

A discussion took place regarding various underspends that were noted in the report. A Member queried if this meant that the Council was understaffed. The Director responded and said it did not mean that the Council was currently understaffed. Historically, when the vacancies existed, they would have created underspends at that time. However, most of the positions had since been filled.

RESOLVED that the Environment Portfolio Holders be recommended to endorse the 2022/2023 outturn position for the Environment and Community Services Portfolio.

ES 20295

A Member highlighted the fact that the Road Safety Policy had still not been published and asked when this would be done. The Assistant Director for Traffic and Parking responded that there currently existed fragmented information concerning the policy on the Council website and this needed to be consolidated into a new policy document and a new format. The process was taking longer than had been anticipated, but it was hoped to be completed by the end of July.

A Member observed that the numbers shown in the graph at section 3.9 of the report—'KSI Road Casualties in LB Bromley,’ were figures from 2005 to 2017 which had been back-cast using the new method of reporting that was used from November 2016, yet this back-casting was not noted in the report. The Member commented that if you were to work on a trend line graph for the last five years, i.e.., since the reporting mechanism changed, so 2017 figures up to 2022, (ignoring the pandemic figure in 2020) then the trend line would be observed as a straight line. This would show that KSI road casualties in Bromley had actually plateaued in those five years. The Assistant Director for Traffic and Parking agreed with the assumption that the figures had plateaued for that period. The Member felt that pandemic figures should not be included, but the Assistant Director for Traffic and Parking  disagreed with this.

A Member stated that the report highlighted the Council’s own objectives with regard to ‘Making Bromley Even Better.’ This was in respect of projects to enhance walking and cycling infrastructure.’ She said that the report quoted the Making Bromley Even Better’ objective of..“the safety of road users on our streets needs to be enhanced as far as is possible.” But despite these statements, Bromley had the fourth highest rate of cycling KSIs per cycled trip in any London Borough. The Member stated that in terms of mode share, Bromley remained 29^th out of 33 boroughs for walking as a mode of travel in London. It was explained that existing limited road space made cycle routes less safe than would other wise be the case and that segregated cycle routes were preferable. Much money could be spent on a segregated cycle route whilst covering a limited distance as these were expensive to install. The Council felt that one of the best ways to reduce cyclist casualties was to provide road safety and cycle training programmes. 

The Assistant Director for Traffic and Parking clarified that whenever possible, the Council would look at data to identify accident hotspots involving cyclists. The Council would then introduce design improvements when possible to reduce casualties. This was currently being considered with respect to the ‘Chinese Roundabout’ in Beckenham, as approximately half of the accidents there involved cyclists. 

A Member referred to the graph in section 3.10: Road Fatalities LB Bromley. She asked if these fatalities included those who had died 30+ days or more after the collision, deaths  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13c

ES20288

A Member queried why there was no income figure quoted in the report. He said that the Committee should be provided with an income figure against expenditure. Another Member asked why the stall holders did not set up their own stalls and how was the Council recovering funds. The Assistant Director for Environment promised that further financial details would be emailed to committee members the day following the meeting. It was confirmed that the Market Stall Supervisor post had been recruited to. 

Post Meeting Note:

(Further details were emailed by the Assistant Director to Members on 30^th June as promised).

RESOLVED that the Portfolio Holder for Sustainability, Green Services and Open Spaces be recommended to approve the two year extension option for the Bromley Market Stall Assembly Contract. The extension would be for the period of January 2024 to December 2025, at an estimated value of £218k (based on an estimated annual value of £109k).

These reports follow in the subsequent minutes.

ES20287

A Member queried the figure of £940k that was referenced in section 3.11 of the report. He enquired if that figure should in fact be £955k and asked for an explanation of the calculations. The Assistant Director for Environment (Carbon Management & Green Space) explained that the figure of £400K was a budget increase which had funded the £235k. The figure of £940k was a multiplication of the £235k across the remaining term of the contract. The amount of £320k (which had also been mentioned by the Member) was not included in the £940k as it had been dealt with previously by a separate variation.

RESOLVED that the Executive approve the variations (modifications) to the contract for parks management and grounds maintenance with idverde as follows:

  I.  Up to £880k for the delivery of projects funded by the Platinum Jubilee Parks Fund, as set out in paragraphs 3.6 - 3.8.

  II.  Up to £235k per annum for the remaining contract term (£940k cumulatively for the initial term or £2.82m if extended) for park infrastructure repairs, as set out in paragraphs 3.9 to 3.11.

  III.  £69k per annum for the remaining contract term (cumulatively £276k for the initial term, or £828k if extended), for additional weekend cleansing, as set out in paragraphs 3.12--3.14.

  IV.  Up to £71k per annum for the remaining contract term (cumulatively £284k for the initial term or £852k if extended) for PROW (Public Rights of Way) infrastructure works, as set out in paragraphs 3.15 to 3.16.

  V.  £83k for the initial term (£97k if extended) for the payment of the Countryside Stewardship Grants as set out in paragraphs 3.17 - 3.18.

  VI.  That the Executive be recommended to delegate authority to the Assistant Director Environment (Carbon Management & Green Space) to undertake variations as required and through the appropriate contractual process for recommendations I, II and IV within the values authorised.

VII.  That the Executive be recommended to approve the scheme of delegation for authorisations in relation to future variations (modifications) to the contract for parks management and grounds maintenance as set out in paragraph 3.21.

ES20282

A Member sought clarification of the term ‘Neutral Vendor Framework’ and asked if it was the case that costs had increased by 42%. It was explained that a neutral vendor framework was a framework that the Council could access by contracting directly with the neutral vendor, who had access to a supply chain who would quote for the works. It was a recognised procurement methodology, used when a speedy route to market was required.

RESOLVED that:

1) The Executive be recommended to agree to the procurement of additional suppliers to supplement the current arrangements for the delivery of arboricultural services, subject to the specific recommendations in the Part 2 report.

2) The Executive be recommended to approve the drawdown of an additional £566k from the Healthy Bromley Earmarked Reserve to enable the delivery of the Treemendous Project.

ES20281

It was noted that desilting was a cost and it was asked if there was a desilting schedule that would help to spread costs more evenly in the future. It was explained that some of the funding increase that had been agreed the previous year would be used to fund future cyclical desilting activities and that idverde would assist in determining future desilting priorities. It was commented that a commitment was required for ongoing future maintenance. It was noted that no formal records could be found to indicate when Kelsey Park was previously de-silted.

A Member drew attention to the proposed spend of £80k for a Project Manager; he queried why this post was required and also why a capital spend was being used for a revenue item. He suggested that the contractor could employ a Project Manager and therefore the Council did not need to. The Assistant Director Environment (Carbon Management & Greenspace) and the Director for Environment explained that the post involved a heavy workload and that a strong client side resource was required to support the project. It was a complex and large piece of work involving significant interaction with local groups. The impact on the local community and environment could not be underestimated and there was a risk involved in allowing the existing contractor to solely manage the project. The Director said he was confident that this was the correct course of action.

A discussion took place concerning biodiversity surveys and ecology assessments. A Member suggested that as well as the employment of a Project Manager, there should also be a good communications plan to explain to the community what was happening.

RESOLVED that:

1) The Executive be recommended to agree to a variation of idverde's contract at a one off value of £63k, to undertake the survey work identified at paragraph 3.10 and to prepare the technical specifications for the tender of a works contractor.

2) The Executive be recommended to agree to proceed to procurement for a works contractor to deliver the project in accordance with the procurement strategy set out in paragraphs 3.21 to 3.24.

3) The Executive be recommended to agree to delegate authority to the Director of Environment and Public Protection, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Sustainability, Green Services and Open Spaces, to award the works contract to the successful tenderer, up to the value remaining in the Capital Programme for the Kelsey Lakes.

4) The Executive be recommended to agree to create a 15 month fixed term Project Manager post to deliver the project using the Capital Programme funding for Kelsey Lakes, at an estimated cost of £80k as set out in paragraph 3.27.

5) The Executive be recommended to approve a one off variation to idverde’s contract of £17.5k for 2023/2024, to fund the desilting project at Croydon Canal, identified in paragraph 3.29.

ES20276

Members agreed that this project was a success story. The Portfolio Holder informed Members that future applications for project funding would now be referred to herself. Applications had to contain funding for maintenance. It was noted that £40k had been allocated to each Ward. If no applications were received from a particular Ward, the funding would not be re-allocated to a different Ward. In due course, officers would help to support Friends’ Groups in those wards where applications had not been received. 

RESOLVED that the Environment and Community Services PDS Committee note the progress made on the delivery the Platinum Jubilee Parks Fund during the first year of implementation, including the change in decision maker.

ES20296

This report had been presented to members of the Public Protection and Enforcement PDS Committee the previous evening as the decision maker in this matter was the Portfolio Holder for Public Protection and Enforcement. The Committee had recommended that the Portfolio Holder agree the recommendations of the report. There was an amendment to the recommendations that the implementation date be set to 1^st September 2023. 

Members of the ECS PDS Committee had no further comments to add and accepted the recommendations as outlined in the report.

RESOLVED that:

1) The ECS PDS Committee note the recommendations of the report.

2) The Portfolio Holder for Public Protection and Enforcement be recommended to approve the renewal of the PSPO (Dog Controls) 2023-26.

3) The implementation date be set at 1^st September. 

4) The Portfolio Holder for Public Protection and Enforcement be recommended to approve the amendment to the current Public Spaces Protection Order under section 59 of the Anti-Social Behaviour, Crime and Police Act 2014, that a person can be in charge of no more than three (3) dogs at any one time in a public place unless they have a licence issued by Bromley Council.

5) The Portfolio Holder for Public Protection and Enforcement be recommended to approve the reduction in the number of dogs permitted to be walked under licence to four (4) dogs.

6) The Portfolio Holder for Public Protection and Enforcement be recommended to approve the extension of Dogs on Lead designated areas to include all cemeteries, allotments and park cafe seating areas within the administrative area of Bromley.

ES20294

A Member expressed the view that Bromley Council was being short-changed by the London Mayor. He expressed concern that funding may not be available to undertake road maintenance repairs that could be dangerous. The Portfolio Holder for Transport, Highways and Road Safety agreed with this assessment and said that this was a matter that had been discussed at London Councils on the Transport and Environment Committee and also on the Transport Funding Sub-Committee.

It was noted that recently £200m of funding had been provided by central government for all boroughs except those in London and the Isles of Scilly. Bromley Council had recently put in a bid for funding to the value of £200k. The Assistant Director for Highways said that in his view it was a strong bid, but Bromley had not received any funding. There was no indication of what funding may be available from the 2024/2025 budget. As the Council had not received any funding from TfL they had to use some of their own money to repair major roads.

RESOLVED that the report regarding the Planned Maintenance of Principal Roads be noted. 

ES20279

Members were presented with the ECS Risk Register for consideration and comment.

RESOLVED that the ECS Risk Register report be noted.

ES20285

The Committee was presented with the ECS Contract Register for review and comment.

RESOLVED that the ECS Contracts Register be noted.

ES20282

The minutes for this item are noted in the corresponding confidential (Part 2 Minutes).  

The Committee was presented with the Part 2 (confidential) Contracts Database update for consideration and comment.

RESOLVED that the Part 2 Contracts Database update be noted.