Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Councillor Harry Stranger and Councillor Tony Owen attended as substitute. Apologies were also received from Councillor Samaris Huntington Thresher and Councillor Michael Tickner attended as substitute. 

Councillor Ian Dunn declared an interest as a Governor of Stuart Fleming Primary School.

Councillor Mcilveen declared an interest as he worked for a company that represented concrete, asphalt, cement and aggregate producers.

The minutes of the meeting held on 1st of September 2021 were agreed and signed as a correct record.

CSD 21122

A Member enquired about three items that were previously on the work programme but had now being removed. These were :

·  The AQAP follow up report

·  Broomwood Road/Sevenoaks Way Junction report

·  Manor Wood Road/Wickham Road Pedestrian Safety report

He asked when these reports would be presented to the Committee. The Director for Environment and Public Protection said that he would look into this and update Members.

RESOLVED that the Matters Arising and Work Programme report be noted and that the Director for Environment and Public Protection would update the Committee regarding the reports mentioned above.

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 which are not specific to the agenda should have been received by the Democratic Services Team by 5pm on November 3^rd. 

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 11^th November.

Oral questions were taken by the Portfolio Holder from members of the public. The questions and the responses are attached as appendices to the minutes. A hundred written questions had been received from members of the public and these questions, together with the responses, had been disseminated to the Committee and to members of the public in the public gallery. The questions and responses are also be attached as appendices to the minutes. Written questions had also been received from Councillors and the answers to these had also been disseminated to Members at the meeting as well as to the public gallery.

ES 20135

The Riney Contract Performance Report was presented by Garry Warner (Assistant Director for Highways). Attending from Riney were Peter Hyde (Managing Director) and Luke McFarlane (Contracts Director).

The Assistant Director informed the Committee that the key performance indicators were now within tolerance levels and the works with respect to  street lighting were now progressing well. 

A Member referenced a project that had commenced in his Ward in January 2021. The project had not ended until very recently. He said that the project (as he understood it) was primarily concerning the realignment of a curve in a pavement. This being the case, it seemed to take a long time to complete and he wondered why this was. The Contracts Director responded that there were complications with respect to the location of the drains which seemed to be located in unusual places; it was a project with a lot of unknowns.

A Member referred to a period in the report where the performance against KPIs had dropped off sharply. He hoped that Riney could provide assurances that such a drop in performance would not re-occur. He also referred to a section in the report regarding Riney’s CO2 emissions and asked for a note that could be disseminated to the Committee regarding these. Riney’s Managing Director responded and said that the period in question was part of a challenging year, with the organisation being affected by COVID lockdowns and other significant unknowns. There was also the challenge that a number of their workforce were East European and because of the travel restrictions resulting from lockdown, many had taken long holidays and went back home. The construction industry had experienced other significant challenges with respect to the procurement of various building materials. There had been other issues like HGV driver shortages and fuel problems. He concluded by saying that Riney were now back on track in terms of KPIs.  Regarding CO2 emissions performance, he said that he would be happy to provide data to the Committee regarding this and that Riney as an organisation were committed to reducing their carbon footprint.

The Ward Member for the Crofton Road Cycle Scheme (Cllr Marlow) stated that the scheme had taken 10 months to complete which was longer than expected and had resulted in significant disruption to residents over an extended time frame. He was hoping that guarantees could be made that this sort of thing would not happen again and asked if the Riney representatives wanted to make any comments to the public who were in the public gallery,  many of whom were affected residents.

A Member drilled down into the drop in performance for April and observed that much of this was regarding street lighting. He expressed the view that this area of work should not have been affected by a shortage of materials which had been stated previously as a reason for poor performance over that period.

The Managing Director from Riney said that he would look into this issue and respond,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 138.

ES2006

The Idverde Annual Contract Performance Report was presented by the Assistant Director for Environment and by the ECS Neighbourhood Manager. Representing Idverde was Martin Bradley (Operations Director). It was noted that the contract had 11 key performance areas and that 8/11 had been maintained at 90% or above. There had been a focus on sustainability and carbon reduction.

Reference was made to the woodland management practice of coppicing and that this had caused alarm to some residents as they were not aware of the nature of the work being undertaken. It was agreed that better communication with the public was required. 

A Member commented that 50% of the general public that had been surveyed with respect to the condition of toilets in green spaces had expressed dissatisfaction with their condition. He also felt that there were not enough drinking fountains available in green spaces, the use of which would also discourage the use of plastic.

Members were informed that surveys were currently underway to see what needed to be done with respect to refurbishing toilets in green spaces. Once the surveys were completed, then costs could be estimated. In the meantime routine infrastructure maintenance had been undertaken. Surveys would also be undertaken with respect to drinking fountains. It was noted that there were eight in the borough and a new one had recently been installed in Chislehurst.

It was mentioned that greater usage had been made of parks and green spaces because of lockdown and this had resulted in an increase in waste and litter in the parks. It was sometimes the case that these bins were not being emptied soon enough and this had resulted in litter being blown about onto surrounding streets.

A Member asked about events and income from events in parks. The Neighbourhood Manager replied that this area had been challenging and had reduced because of lockdown. Officers were now looking at the Crystal Palace Park Trust and the possibility of clawing back funds into parks. Some bookings and events had now been made for the new year and more information could be provided regarding this if required.

A Member asked about the ‘Brilliant Butterflies’ project and whether this had been successful. It was noted that the project was still in its infancy and that two out of four projects had now been initiated. It was hoped to introduce another two ‘Brilliant Butterfly’ projects in the new year and the report on these matters would be presented to the Committee in due course.

A Member stated that he had received reports concerning padlocked car parks and he asked what could be done to resolve this issue.  It was noted that LBB had requested Idverde to ensure that contingency plans were in place to deal with this matter. 

The Chairman stated that the Green Flag awards were a great achievement and he was pleased to note the various biodiversity projects that had been started. It was noted that plans were in place for bio-diversity projects where  ...  view the full minutes text for item 139.

There was no separate update from the Portfolio Holder on this occasion.

The ECS Senior Performance Officer attended to update Members regarding the ECS Performance Overview.

It was noted that the performance relating to waste collection services was red, but this was because of a change in habit and an increase in residential waste resulting from the Covid Pandemic where more people were working from home.

The performance for highway maintenance was also red ragged and it was hoped that these figures would improve for November and December. 

A discussion took place regarding the basic push type scooters  and E scooters. It was made clear that Bromley Council did not support the use of E scooters as they were both illegal and dangerous. A campaign had been run by the Council to highlight this. The matter of the scooters was also being looked into by the Public Protection and Enforcement Scrutiny Committee. It was noted that if the wording on the Council website regarding scooters was not clear enough then it would need to be reworded.

It was suggested that the Green Garden Waste target should be re-assessed.

RESOLVED that the Performance Overview report be noted.  

Portfolio Holder decisions for pre-decision scrutiny.

The Head of Finance (HoF) for ECS and Corporate Services attended to provide the Budget Monitoring update.

A Member asked why green garden waste was losing money despite the fact that more people were using the service. The HoF explained that there was an element of a one off cost that had to be factored in for the purchase and delivery of the wheeled bin for new subscribers, which was recovered over a 4 year period. But it was also the case that the Council would need to assess if the fees and charges for this service were in line with the costs being incurred by the Council for its delivery.  . 

There was a discussion with respect to projected income from advertising. There were two estimates quoted, one for a profit and one for a loss. A Member queried why this was the case. The Director for Environment and Public Protection replied that this was probably because two different contracts were being referenced. He said that he would look into this and report back.

A Member raised the issue of the uncertainties of TfL funding as this was financing certain Council positions and projects. It was noted that this grant funding was due to run out on the 11th of December and the Member asked what could be done to mitigate the the effects of this.  The Director responded that the Council was hoping to understand before Christmas what the position was in terms of TfL grant funding.

The Chairman noted that the Council was being supported by £444k of specialist Covid funding and wondered how long this was for and what would happen in the long term if the cost drivers did not diminish. The Head of Finance explained that it was very difficult at the moment to accurately forecast budgets. The Council over the last one and a half years had received £300m with respect to Covid grants, the vast majority of which had gone to businesses and residents directly. There was some residual grant funding left over which was unringfenced but this was limited. In the previous budget, the predicted shortfall from parking income had been allowed for, but it was difficult to assess how many of these changes with respect to town centres and parking had now become embedded as a result of COVID.

RESOLVED that the Budget Monitoring report be noted.  

ES 20132

The update on the Open Space Strategy was presented by the Strategic Commissioning Officer (Environment), the Assistant Director for Environment and the Contracts Manager for Grounds Maintenance and Parks. A brief overview was presented concerning the report and it was noted that there were five strategic objectives and that the Strategy was a 10 year strategy (2021 to 2031). The Strategy would be subject to a monitoring framework to ensure that all relevant objectives were being delivered. It was a multi-disciplinary approach to project development. 

A Member said that the report was welcome and it was good, but it did not define what success looked like. He also expressed the view that all parks should be open for as long as possible and that this was not identified as an area of success in the report.  He suggested that the use of technology and automation to open and close parks could be considered for the future. The Assistant Director responded that not all green spaces would require automation and there would be other aspects that would need to be considered such as monitoring anti-social behaviour and security where manual intervention on the ground may be required. 

A Member raised the issue of the audits of open spaces which was referenced in the report and he wondered when the results of this audit would be coming back to the Committee. The Assistant Director responded that there would be regular updates to the Committee particularly via the Idverde Performance  report. The Member made the observation that the audit would be completed by 2022  and stated that he would not wish to wait another year to see the results of the audit. The Assistant Director acknowledged this and said that this would be fitted in at an appropriate point.

A Member commented on the importance of Friends Groups and he suggested that certain community projects which could benefit from National Lottery funding should be applied to directly by these groups rather than by the Council. The Chairman expressed the view that going forward there should be better engagement and consultation with volunteer groups.

The Chairman noted the £2.5 million fundraising target and asked if this was still in place. It was reported that this target was still in place but that it was a baseline figure. The Chairman commented that this was an unambitious target and it should be double that figure.

It was felt that regular meetings should be held to check on progress against the Strategy and it was agreed that an update should be brought back to the Committee in the Summer of 2022.

Councillor Owen expressed concern about developers trying to grab hold of every green space that appeared on housing developments and made the following recommendation:

‘The Committee should support the retention of amenity greens and other green spaces installed as part of the original layout of housing development’. This recommendation was supported by the Chairman and seconded by Councillor Fawthrop. The Director for Environment  ...  view the full minutes text for item 142b

ES20127

The update regarding the LBB Electric Vehicle Charging Strategy was provided by Amy Mallet (Carbon Management Graduate Intern). Members were informed that the work stream was focused in two main areas:

·  The organisational transition to an electrical fleet in Bromley.

·  The borough wide electrification of charging points for residents.

It was important that the public charging network in Bromley be enhanced as this development lagged behind other boroughs. In Bromley there were approximately 24 charging points per 100,000 people which compared to 51 charging points for other boroughs. There was an issue in Bromley in that many residents did not have access to off street parking and because of this additional locations needed to be found to provide electric charging points. Mapping work had been undertaken with the Energy Saving Trust which had identified some locations across the borough where electric charging points could possibly be installed.

Officers were seeking comments and approval for the proposed strategy and the approval to move ahead with the pilot scheme for residential charging points. The results of the pilot scheme would be brought back to the Committee in either January or March 2022.

A Member commented that as part of its lighting strategy, LBB had moved lampposts to the back of pavements which unfortunately now meant that it was not possible to have charging points installed in those lamppostsbecause it would run across a pavement and be dangerous. His view was that there should be more private sector investment and that the applicant should be required to pay for the installation of the charging point.   

It was noted that the work with the Energy Saving Trust had identified 1109 priority streets and that there was an online resident request form on the Council website.

A discussion took place concerning possible negative feedback in some cases where the installation of an electric charging point could result in the loss of a parking bay. It was noted that not all electrical charging installations would require the existence of a charging bay.

It was noted that officers were keeping an eye on developments with respect to hydrogen but this seemed to be more relevant to commercial use rather than residential.

A Member pointed out that the availability or not of electric charging points would be a significant factor in whether or not Bromley residents decided to buy electric vehicles. A discussion took place concerning the installation costs.

The Chairman expressed his support for gully charging rather than the installation of any type of street furniture which would be liable to vandalism.

RESOLVED that:

1) The adoption of the draft LBB Electric Charging Strategy be approved.

2) The Portfolio Holder grant approval for officers to progress with the design of the Pilot Residential Chargepoint Project.

3) The option of ‘Gully Charging’ be progressed as an aspect of the project.

4) A report on the pilot charging scheme would be presented to the Committee either in January or March 2022

ES20134

The update on this report was presented by the Assistant Director for Traffic and Parking and the Traffic Engineering Manager. (TEM)

The TEM informed Members that the primary aim of the project was to improve the walking facilities for pedestrians. There was reference to a previous fatality on this road which occurred in 2019; it was noted however that this was not caused by a defect of the road layout, but rather driver error. One of the ways in which pedestrian safety would be improved was the incorporation of new traffic islands, the introduction of tactile crossing points and the consideration of reducing the speed limit.

The Chairman pointed out that the relevant Ward Councillors had not been party to the consultation process for the project. The TEM informed Members that Officers had been involved in extensive discussions with the Portfolio Holder regarding this and they presumed that the Portfolio Holder would have informed Ward Councillors.

A Member who knew the area well raised concerns regarding speeding. She said that the variations in the speed limit along this stretch of road were confusing for motorists and asked for a more regulated approach to be adopted as far as speed limits were concerned.

A Member expressed the view that the new road layout would improve pedestrian safety. He suggested that the speed limit be regulated at 40mph. Another Member suggested that the speed limit should be 30mph and the installation of traffic cameras along the A224. He noted that the view had been expressed previously that reducing the speed limit to 30mph on Court Road would lead to motorists leaving the road and using side roads as rat runs. He said that after looking at a map of the area this would not be a viable option for motorists. 

A discussion took place as to how traffic flowed between Carlton Parade and the A20 and ‘rat runs’. The Portfolio Holder expressed concern regarding potential ‘rat runs’.  He suggested an advisory speed limit of 30 miles an hour could be considered, but he was anxious to maintain a reasonable speed limit so that traffic would not divert from the bypass to the side roads.

Councillor Samaris Huntington Thresher was not able to attend the meeting but submitted the following comment via email:

‘I would like to note my support for the reduced speed limit to 30mph between The Highway and Goddington Lane and also the increase number of desire line crossing points with midway islands. 

The road is very wide here and a narrowing of the carriageway particularly by Charterhouse and the ability to wait safely for those turning right from it would be helpful’.

RESOLVED that

1) The Council carry out an informal consultation, detailed design and Road Safety Audits.

2) The scheme should be implemented subject to a positive response from the Consultation.

3) The results of the Consultation would come back to the Committee for scrutiny.

4) Any minor design changes that were required to the scheme should  ...  view the full minutes text for item 142d

ES 20109

The introduction to this report was presented by the Waste Strategy Manager. Members were reminded that on the 16th of July 2018, the Executive approved a capital budget of £6.5 million for infrastructure works across a range of depot locations. The Waste Strategy Manager outlined the main areas of infrastructure works that needed to be completed. Members were briefed that procurement was already underway with respect to some specific remedial works in order to address immediate safety and operational requirements. 

A Member referred to section 7.8 of the report which dealt with the proposed programme and contract period. He asked when Members would be briefed next with respect to an update on the progress of the project.  He also noted that a property review was proposed that would be looked at by the Executive and he asked when this would take place. The Waste Strategy Manager responded that an update would come back to the Committee following the procurement of the construction contractor. It was also proposed that an update be provided to the Committee to report on how it was planned to minimise the disruption to waste services during the period of the works. The matter concerning the operational property review was referred to the Director of Environment for a response. His understanding was that the operational property review was due to be looked at during the second quarter of 2022. It was made clear that this was a separate matter to the depot capital infrastructure works. 

RESOLVED that the Committee approved the recommendations that were being referred to the Executive for decision. 

CSD 21020

On the 18^th October 2021 a motion was moved by Cllr Ian Dunn with respect to the COP 26 Summit. This motion was originally due to be considered by Full Council but was referred to the ECS PDS Committee for consideration. Cllr Dunn felt that on the back of the Summit it would be good for the Council to consider what it could do to encourage residents, business and road transport to reduce carbon emissions.

He suggested that LBB should encourage:

·  Residents to install domestic insulation

·  Installing on street electric vehicle charging points

·  Promoting walking and cycling

The Vice Chairman stated that COP 26 was not the best vehicle to use to engage the general public in environmental matters, as the COP summit appealed to those who were already environmentally engaged. He suggested that the Council play a bigger role in signposting residents to organisations like the Energy Saving Trust and to other similar organisations. 

A Member said that in his view the COP Summit was not relevant to LBB. After all, we had no control over what other larger nations globally were doing. He felt that the motion would have been more relevant if it was linked to encouraging local initiatives. This seemed to be the general consensus of Members. A Member commented that he would not like to see time and resources put into what in effect could end up as just ‘talking shops’. Another Member said that the Council should continue to progress and develop with its Tree Planting Programme.

Another Member felt that LBB should not associate with COP 26 as it had received a bad press with news going around of the abuse of the duty free system and representatives flying in on gulf stream jets. He felt that LBB should focus on their own local initiatives.

The Chairman commented that Bromley had 300,000 residents and the task was to make these people do something different. He felt that one of the things that LBB should be doing was to help local residents with signposting so that they could access services and grants that may be available to them—for example, for insulation, migrating to energy saving tariffs and thermal insulation.

The Chairman suggested that Sarah Foster and her team draft a paper for the Committee that would explain what LBB was doing, what contractors were doing, and what the public could do to reduce their carbon foot print, save energy and apply for grants. The Chairman motioned this and it was seconded by Councillor Dunn.

RESOLVED that Sarah Foster and her team draft a report that would outline what the Council and Contractors were doing to save energy and reduce their carbon foot print. The report would also seek to show how the Council could signpost residents to various grants and services and any other local initiatives aimed at energy savings and reducing Co2 emissions. The report would be presented to the January 2022 ECS PDS meeting.       

ES 20130

The Programme of Tree Establishment update was provided by the Arboricultural Services Manager.

A discussion took place concerning how the longevity of new trees could be enhanced using various methods such as adequate watering, different strimming guards and revised staking methods. Going forward a circle with a diameter of 1 metre would be dug around trees and filled with woodchip to stop the growth of grass. There was now a change in the staking methods. A  double staking method was now being used with hessian ties which were biodegradable. An explanation was provided as to when it would be decided if a new tree should be planted when an old one appeared to be dead or dying.

A Member asked when  trees would be planted in Woodhurst Avenue in Petts Wood; the Arboricultural Services Manager responded that this area had proved problematic after the discovery of many underground services. It was hoped that an alternative viable location could be sourced. It was noted that the Mayor and the Deputy Mayor wished to plant a new tree. Members noted that the new hessian ties were being used as they would not strangle the trees like the old ties sometimes did.

The Chairman referenced the tree planting target which was 100 new trees to be planted by the end of November. Members were pleased to note that according to the contractor they were on target to plant 143 trees by November the 29^th which exceeded the target.

RESOLVED that the report on the Programme of Tree Establishment be noted.

ES20122

The Contracts Register report was presented by the ECS Senior Performance Officer.

A Member noted that the Bromley Market Assembly contract was due to expire on the 31st of December 2021 but this was only rag rated as ‘amber’ and he wondered why this was not in fact rag rated as ‘red’ due to the proximity of the date.  ECS Senior Performance Officer said that she would look into this and update Members via the Committee Clerk.

RESOLVED that the report be noted and that the Senior Performance Officer update the Committee with respect to the Bromley Market Assembly contract.

ES20139

The report regarding the Review of Temporary School Streets was presented by the Assistant Director for Traffic and Parking and by LBB’s Road Safety Manager.

The idea of School Streets was to promote the take up of walking to school to reduce pollution and congestion. During the lockdown, the Government introduced money to support social distancing schemes and so some of this money was used for School Streets in order to support social distancing outside of schools. The School Street projects had to be set up during July and August 2020 as the money had to be used by September. Six schools came forward originally and so these were used to initiate a School Street trial. The Hayes School trial was ongoing, as this had only been started in September.

The Assistant Director for Traffic and Parking said that in some ways this was an interim report and officers were looking for guidance as to whether Members felt School Streets were positive or negative--or whether Members felt more information was required.

Councillor Tickner said that in his ward in Beckenham, Clare House School had introduced a School Street; this was running very successfully and was supported by Ward Members. St Mary’s School had applied to join the scheme and he supported the recommendation that they should be allowed to do so. His recommendation was seconded by Councillor Terry.

A Member drew attention to the fact that in some areas, reports had come in of children running out into live traffic and he hoped that measures would be put in place to resolve this. The Road Safety Manager responded and said that she had spoken to Road Safety Officers and they would be doing a safety presentation for any schools that were involved in the School Street trials. The Council would also be making use of Junior Travel Ambassadors. Any new schools that joined the scheme would be required to take part in any appropriate educational programmes or presentations that would promote road safety and awareness. 

A Member asked if residents had been consulted.  The RSM responded and said that the Traffic Orders would end in March 2022 and could not be automatically extended—it was planned that residents would be consulted at that point. A discussion took place as to how drivers could be properly informed with respect to School Streets. The aim was not to be prosecuting drivers but rather to enhance road safety.

A discussion took place as to why it was that some School Streets were successful and others were not—the reasons for this were not always clear. A Member referenced the possible use of ANPR and suggested that officers start looking into the costs for this now.

RESOLVED that:

1) The two existing Temporary School Streets (at Clare House Primary and Poverest Primary) would continue until the end of the summer term in 2022. After this time, the June 2022 PDS Committee would review the pilot scheme at Hayes and then make a decision regarding Borough  ...  view the full minutes text for item 148.

ES20133

Members noted the ECS Risk Register update.

RESOLVED that the ECS Risk Register Update report be noted.

ES20138

The Assistant Director for Traffic and Parking attended to provide the update regarding the Crofton Road Pedestrian and Cycling Route Review. This scheme was a matter of significant public interest and it was noted that Ward Councillor Christopher Marlow would be addressing the Committee on this matter.

The Assistant Director explained that this scheme first came to the Committee in 2017 and then went out for consultation; as a result of this a number of modifications were made to the scheme. The main aim of the scheme had been to provide a cycle route, to make the route safe for pedestrians, reduce traffic congestion and to reduce pollution. 

Councillor Marlow (Ward Member) thanked the Chairman for the opportunity to respond as the only Ward Councillor on the Committee. He stated that his fellow Ward Councillors (Cllrs Charles Joel and Cllr Robert Evans) were also in attendance and that the view that he was expressing was a collective Ward Councillor view.

Cllr Marlow stated that due to the demographics of the Farnborough and Crofton Ward, the Ward Councillors were of the view that cycling would never be significant in this Ward and resultantly the pedestrian and cycling route project did not represent good value for money. Although it was the case that funding from this project did not come directly from Bromley taxpayers, it was still the case that all Councillors had a duty to safeguard the public purse. Cllr Marlow pointed out that the scheme had been supported by the PDS Committee and authorised by the Portfolio Holder without the support of Ward Councillors.

Cllr Marlow paid tribute to the hard work of the Crofton Residents’ Association (CRA) which had resulted in positive changes to the scheme being made. This included the alteration of the stretch of road from Crofton Lane to Locksbottom was altered which meant that as well as providing cycling infrastructure, a renovated foot path was also installed. Another significant positive change was the provision of additional zebra crossings. The final positive contribution arising from the work of the CRA was a net increase in the number of trees planted.

Cllr Marlow commented on the consultation and construction process. There had been a two stage consultation process in 2017 and 2019. He said that the second consultation process that had taken place in 2019 could have been made more inclusive. 

Cllr Marlow stated that the Rain Gardens that were due to incorporate much of the scheme’s vegetation had been left empty for months and that Crofton Road was now significantly narrower as a result of the scheme. He said that if a bus was parked by York Rise, it was now very difficult for other vehicles to pass safely. This was exacerbated when a driver changeover was taking place—this was now being looked into by TfL. Widening the road at this point would make it safer to overtake. He expressed the view that the two way cycle lane on the York Rise side was a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 150.