Agenda and minutes

Apologies were received from Cllr Adam Grant and Councillor Michael Tickner attended a substitute.

Councillor Alison Stammers declared an interest as a member of the Friends of Chislehurst Recreation Ground. She also declared an interest as Chairman of the Woodlands Practice and Chislehurst Medical Practice Patients Participation Group.

Councillor Michael Tickner declared an interest as a member of the Friends of Kelsey Park.

The minutes of the meeting that was held on 6^th September 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 8^th November.

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 16^th November.

No questions were received for the Chairman.

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 8^th November.

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 16^th November.

Four oral questions had been received from members of the public for Cllr Aisha Cuthbert.

Two oral questions had been received for Cllr Nicholas Bennett from members of the public.

Twenty one written questions had been received from the public across both portfolios. 

The questions are appended to the published minutes.

Two oral questions from councillors had been received for Cllr Cuthbert.

One oral question from a councillor had been received for Cllr Nicholas Bennett.

Five written questions had been received from councillors across both portfolios.

The questions and responses are attached as appendices to the minutes.

CSD22140

A Member suggested that due to the volume of items on the Work Programme, the current ECS PDS Committee should be split into two committees which would complement the fact that there were now two Portfolio Holders. The Chairman responded and said that the suggestion was noted. Members discussed when data related to particulate matter would next be discussed at Committee. It was likely that this would be in about a year’s time as a year was required for this data to be useful. It was agreed that a follow up AQAP report be added to the Work Programme.

A Member wondered why this particular committee meeting was so weighted and loaded with reports as this made it impossible to scrutinise matters properly. The Director for Environment and Public Protection stated that the Work Programme had been agreed by Members. 

A Member suggested that as the agenda was voluminous, a 10 minute break should be considered.  

RESOLVED that the Matters Arising and Work Programme report be noted and that an AQAP update report be added to the Work Programme.

Martin Bradley (Operations Director, Idverde), attended to update Members and answer questions. The Chairman drew attention to the Tetra Tech report commissioned by Idverde regarding public satisfaction with grounds maintenance in Bromley. The Chairman asked how Tetra Tech arrived at the question format and it was clarified that the questions were proposed by Idverde in consultation with a consultant. The Chairman noted that the survey had been sent randomly to 3000 people and there had been 336 responses. The Chairman pointed out that with respect to the figure of 3000 this only equated to 1% of the population of Bromley and with a 336 response rate this only constituted 0.001% of the Bromley population.  Mr Bradley said that he was disappointed with the response and felt that there needed to be a smarter way to catch feedback. He suggested that electronic surveys may be more useful.

A Member suggested that ‘Friends Groups’ should be consulted. There were a number of Friends Groups and active Friends Forums, many playing effective roles and the Chairman agreed with this. A Member urged caution and said that if surveys were directed primarily to Friends Groups then casual users may get missed and the results could be skewed. Mr Bradley said that the requirements of the survey needed to be reviewed.

There was a discussion about the condition of Bromley parks and concerns were expressed by Members regarding broken or no benches to sit on, litter, rats, toilets and the dredging of ponds. A Member commented that  Chislehurst  was the first ward where a park was awarded the ‘Green Flag’ status. She commented that this status was unlikely to have been achieved without the sterling work undertaken by Friends Groups and she would have liked this to  have been noted in the report.

A Member commented on work that had been undertaken by Idverde in the Orpington Ward (Priory Gardens) and said that Idverde had been excellent and had dealt effectively with issues that had arisen. 

The Chairman addressed Mr Bradley and said that there was room for improvement which the Committee hoped to see next year.

RESOLVED that the Idverde Annual Contract Performance Report be noted.

It was noted that regarding the Arboricultural Service, the KSI achieved was 64.53%, which was below the Council’s target of 75%. This was because of a backlog of work and key work that needed to be undertaken with respect to Fix My Street. Meetings were being held with the contractor to deal with the backlog. Members noted the indicators with respect to Riney and the fact that meetings were being held with them to seek improvements. 

Members discussed School Travel Plans and it was noted that the Council’s target was 90 out of 116 schools. The Council was below target in this regard and was actively seeking to  re-engage with schools.

RESOLVED that the Performance Overview update be noted.

A Member enquired as to the new design of the buses that were intended for the 358 bus route and the Portfolio Holder responded saying that the new buses would look similar to a tram and were exhibited at the NEC recently. These were due to be operational in April 2023.

A Member stated that subsequent to the ‘calling in’ of the report regarding School Streets on the 15th of July, the Council issued a statement saying that they were supporting school streets. She asked how this was being achieved and if the Council could use contractors to man the barriers. The Portfolio Holder responded and said that the Council would not use contractors as it was the responsibility of the schools to arrange the manning of the barriers.

A Member stated that she had recently attended the Public Transport Liaison  Group and was able to view images of the new buses. She had subsequently submitted questions to the representatives of the various operators, but was still awaiting a response after six weeks. The Portfolio Holder said that if the Member forwarded him the details he would try and assist.

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

A Member asked if streets that were located next to schools were given priority in terms of leaf clearing. The Portfolio Holder responded and explained that priority was allocated to streets and roads with a high leaf fall. However, if there was a particular problem with leaf fall at a school then the Council would be prepared to look at that. It was noted that there had been 30 applications with respect to the Jubilee Grant and that the results of the applications would be known by the end of the month.

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

Councillor Turrell assured the Committee that plans to deal with various issues around FMS (‘Fix My Street’) were progressing and going in the right direction. He said that some exciting plans were being developed and that these would be communicated to the Committee in due course. A Member expressed the view that it would be beneficial for someone from FMS to attend the ECS PDS Committee. The Director for Environment and Public Protection said that he would look into this.

The Portfolio Holder for Sustainability, Parks and Open Spaces thanked Councillor Turrell for his great work and support.

RESOLVED that the update from Executive Assistant Councillor Thomas Turrell be noted.

Portfolio Holder decisions for pre-decision scrutiny.

ES20231

The Committee noted the Budget Monitoring Report for 2022/23.

RESOLVED that the Environment and Community Services Portfolio Holders be recommended to endorse the 2022/23 revenue budget monitoring for the Environment & Community Services Portfolio.

ES20221

Members noted the report concerning the Future of the Central Depot Security Provision and agreed to accept the recommendations.

RESOLVED that the Portfolio Holder for Sustainability, Green Services and Open Spaces be recommended to agree that from 1st April 2023, security at the Central Depot is provided by Veolia Environmental Services as part of the Waste Collection Contract through a variation process for a period of 4 years at an estimated total cost of £504k for the period of the variation (of which £126k only is charged to the Council).

ES20194

Members noted the final report regarding the Council’s Contaminated Land Strategy.

RESOLVED that:

The Portfolio Holder for Sustainability, Green Services and Open Spaces be recommended to approve the adoption of the finalised Contaminated Land Strategy 2022 and that delegated authority be given to the Assistant Director of Public Protection & Enforcement to make minor amendments to the Strategy post adoption, should it be required.

ES20227

A discussion took place concerning the allocation and usage of TfL funding. It was explained that the funding from TfL needed to be recorded as committed to projects. TfL would not want any money that was unspent or returned to them. It was anticipated that the new projects would be reported to the Committee in January and March 2023. The Ward Councillor for Beckenham Town and Copers Cope referenced the junction at Southend Road and Park Road. He was pleased to note that grant funding had been allocated so that modifications could be made at this junction where there had been frequent accidents. It was noted that the Principal Transport Projects Manager was working on a new design for this project alongside design consultants. The new design plans would be provided to the Ward Councillor at his request.

The matter of traffic and road safety programmes and the corresponding level of consultation that would be appropriate with Ward Councillors was discussed.

The Portfolio Holder for Traffic, Highways and Road Safety expressed his thanks to the Assistant Director for Traffic and Parking for his hard work and dedication.

A Member commented that road traffic schemes should only be developed if they were of benefit to residents.

RESOLVED that:

The Portfolio Holder for Transport, Highways and Road Safety be recommended to:

1) Approve the draft 2023/24 Transport Improvement Programme set out in Table 5 for submission to TfL for approval of funding, subject to any changes recommended by the ECS PDS committee that are supported by the Portfolio Holder for Transport, Highways & Road Safety.

2) Approve the delegation of any amendments to the programme, once the final allocation is confirmed by TfL, to the Director of Environment & Public Protection in consultation with the Portfolio Holder for Transport, Highways & Road Safety.

ES20234

A Member queried why public transport had been classified as ‘active travel’.

A Member stated that it was good to see the policies in one place, however he felt that it was rather negative in some respects. He expressed the view that the stance taken in the report with respect to roundabouts was negative and should have a more positive spin. He said that in his ward, roundabouts had been a successful and cost effective way of forcing traffic to reduce speed.  The Assistant Director for Traffic and Parking explained that the original text in the report had been shortened to save space and so the way the text was written may have conveyed an unnecessary negative view of roundabouts that was not intended. It was possible that this may need to be re-worded before the policy was published on the Council website.

A discussion took place concerning what statistics were taken into consideration when deciding to progress and implement road safety schemes. A Member requested that the Council keep under review the evidence base with respect to the implementation of 20 mph speed restrictions. The Assistant Director for Traffic and Parking responded and said that a DFT study had arrived at the conclusion that blanket 20 mph speed restrictions had no impact on reducing casualty figures. In his view, it was not the best way to spend money in order to save lives. He felt that the best way to reduce casualties from road traffic accidents was to focus on accident cluster sites and implement the most appropriate solution for each site. The process for determining what could be regarded as an ‘accident hotspot’ or cluster site was explained.

It was noted that work was underway to implement changes to what was regarded as a dangerous roundabout in Luke Road, Chislehurst. 

The Portfolio Holder for Transport, Highways and Road Safety reminded Members that the report was a statement of the Council’s traffic and road safety policies at this time.

It was noted that the traffic and road safety policies were already in the public domain in the sense that the report had already been published as part of the agenda on the Council website. However, it was clarified that the policies would be formally published on the Council website after some of the wording was modified.

RESOLVED that the Portfolio Holder for Highways, Traffic and Road Safety be recommended to confirm the traffic and parking policies set out in Section 3 of the Traffic and Road Safety Policies report.

ES202230

A Member mentioned that some of his residents were not happy with the implementation of a nature friendly verges trial, commenting that they would use their lawn mowers to mow the verges themselves. The Chairman responded and said that in the view of the Committee this would be an act of vandalism. It was felt that a communications/education campaign was required to explain that the trial had a biodiversity aim. It was suggested that explanatory signs could be used, but that care should be exercised so that road signs were not obscured. 

RESOLVED that:

The Portfolio Holder for Sustainability, Green Services and Open Spaces be recommended to approve the trial for Nature Friendly Verges in accordance with the management regime and public engagement proposals set out in this report, at the following sites:

•  Addington Road (West Wickham/Hayes & Coney Hall)

•  Beadon Road (Bromley Town)

•  Copers Cope Road (Beckenham Town & Copers Cope)

•  Court Road (Orpington)

•  Downs Hill/Ravensbourne Avenue (Shortlands and Park Langley/Bromley Town/Beckenham & Copes Cope)

•  Northfield Road (St Mary Cray)

•  Ormonde Avenue (Farnborough and Crofton)

•  Pickhurst Lane and Pickhurst Mead (West Wickham/Hayes and Coney Hall)

•  Rangefield Road Footpath (Plaistow)

•  River Pool Walk (Penge and Cator)

•  Warren Road (Chelsfield)

ES20219

Members noted the report and were happy to accept the recommendations.

The Portfolio Holder for Traffic, Highways and Road Safety commented that all the Ward Councillors were in favour of the recommendations, but it would have nice to have been consulted. 

RESOLVED that  the Portfolio Holder for Transport, Highways and Road Safety makes the following decisions:

(As part of the Bromley’s Housing Regeneration, the planning application (Application No.21/04851/FULL1) for the redevelopment of the car park site on Croft Avenue to provide a mews of 6 houses comprising 12 flats (6 x 1 bed and 6 x 3 bed) and a detached three storey block of flats comprising 14 units (5 x studio and 9 x 1 bed); with the associated bike and bin stores, car parking, ancillary space, private, communal amenity space and alterations to the access road has been approved, (see also Committee Report by the Renewal, Recreation and Housing Committee on 16th November 2021))

1) Agrees that an access road will be brought up to Adoptable Standards (see attached plan) through Private Street Works (PSW).

2) Makes a First Resolution under s.205(1) of the Highways Act 1980 in respect of the access road to the rear of 75 – 113 Station Road, West Wickham, as follows:

3) Declares that the access road to the rear of 75-113 Station Road, West Wickham is not sewered, levelled, paved, metalled, flagged, channelled, made good and lighted to its satisfaction and therefore resolves to execute street works therein, under the provisions of the Private Street Works Code, as set out in the Highways Act 1980.

Schedule of Works:

From the junction of the access road with Croft Avenue to the north, for a distance of 98.0m to the south, as shown on Drg. No. P2359 PAR-ZZ-XX-DR-C 8100 attached.

4) Approves the proposed layout to which it is proposed that the access road be made-up all as shown on Drg. No. P2359-ZZ-XX-DR-C 8100 attached.

5) Agrees that in this instance, the Council meets all the expenses of the Private Street Works scheme, under the provisions of s.236 of the Highways Act 1980.

ES20228

A brief update on the report was provided by the Assistant Director for Traffic and Parking.

Cllr Marlow (Ward Councillor) read out a brief statement on behalf of himself and the other Ward Councillors—Cllr Charles Joel and Councillor Robert Evans. The Ward Councillors expressed concerns regarding the possible uprooting of trees and safety issues on the zebra crossings. It was requested that if there were any trees that were uprooted, that they be re-planted. They expressed the view that the post completion survey yielded mixed results and that ‘measures of success’ should be clearly defined before the implementation of future schemes. 

RESOLVED that the Portfolio Holder be recommended to: 

1) Approve the proposals to rectify the current situation at the westbound bus stop near Orpington Station when buses change drivers which causes delays to other traffic, utilising grant funding from TfL of £77k.

2) Agree that any minor changes to the design of this scheme deemed necessary on site are delegated to the Director of Environment and Public Protection, in consultation with the Portfolio Holder and Ward Members.

ES20177

The Committee noted that the proposed changes to parking fees and charging processes would not be applied to the car park at Sundridge Park.

A statement was read out from Cllr Alison Stammers expressing concern that the proposals in the report would have a detrimental impact on residents and businesses. She said that herself and ward colleagues had been inundated with emails urging resistance to the removal of pay and display machines. She highlighted problems with the App and with internet access and the fact that a high percentage of transactions were still being processed using cash. She expressed the view that given the impact of the proposals, there should have been a process of consultation beforehand. She requested therefore that the decision be deferred to allow time for a Boroughwide consultation, or if that was not feasible, time for Ward Councillors to consult with residents and businesses in their respective wards. 

The motion for a deferral from Cllr Stammers was seconded by Cllr Ireland. A Member said that she would like to see more work undertaken on the Equality Impact Assessment before progressing any further with the proposals.

Biggin Hill Ward Councillors Melanie Stevens and Sophie Dunbar requested that the following statement be noted in the minutes:

‘We totally oppose the recommendations to implement paid parking bays on Main Road Biggin Hill. To implement  would be the death of a very tangible, but struggling “High Street” following Covid, the rise in rent and cost of living. It would result in further retail space being converted into residential dwellings, forcing local residents to travel to shop!

The Main Road of Biggin Hill is populated by businesses to the west side and residential properties to the east. 

The free on street waiting bays are located mainly to the shop side of the Main Road with half a dozen being to the residential side.

Most businesses, (83%,) are independent traders which include barbers, beauty & hair salons, florists, card & stationery outlet, post office, convenience stores, food & alcohol retailers, opticians, printing & art design, gift & homewares, butchers, and dry cleaners.  None of these have off street free parking and rely on the parking waiting bays for passing trade which they rely on to stop and visit their shops.

We have not received any complaints from any shop owners that the waiting bays are abused and any vehicles outstaying their time. They comment on how it increases the footfall and is vital to the ongoing success of their business.

The remaining 9% is made up of major supermarket retailers, homeware and food outlets, all with behind store off street free parking facilities. 

There is always ample parking within these car parks. The danger of making the on street free waiting bays into paid bays is that shoppers will park to the rear of the major chains and then fail to exit onto the Main Road and shop at the independent retailers.

In the last 18 months, 2% of retail space has been converted into  ...  view the full minutes text for item 232i

ES20224

The Assistant Director, Carbon Management and Greenspace, briefed the Committee and said that she had met with ward councillors and the Chairman of the ‘Friends of Kelsey Park’ the evening before the meeting. They had expressed some concern regarding the proposed length of time required to repair ‘Bridge B’ and had asked if it was possible for this timescale to be constricted. It was explained that the timescale for the repairs was based on professional advice. If there was any way going forward that the process could be accelerated then it would. It was confirmed that the gates on the bridge would be retained as part of the schedule of works. 

The Executive Assistant to the Portfolio Holder for Sustainability, Green Services and Open Spaces, said that he maintained regular contact with the Friends of Kelsey Park to ensure that they were being informed of any matters relating to the development of the project. 

A Member said that it was very sad that just one bridge was being replaced and that the park was not as clean as it should be. A discussion took place regarding section 3.30 of the report concerning the amount of contingency funding and ‘unknowns’. 

A Member commented that the proposals were just ‘sticking plaster’, Kelsey Park should be given a much higher priority and that the proposals should have been implemented 5 to 10 years previously. She suggested that funding could be allocated from the ‘Shared Prosperity Fund’ and possibly from other similar sources. The Portfolio Holder responded and said that the park was being given a high priority and that this was evidenced from the fact that funds were being drawn down from reserves to be used to repair the bridges in the park. The Portfolio Holder pointed out that the bridges were now coming to the end of their expected ‘lifespan’.

RESOLVED that the Portfolio Holder for Sustainability, Green Services and Open Spaces be recommended to:

1) Note the potential options explored within the existing market to reduce costs.

2) Approve proceeding with the option to replace Bridge B with a new timber footbridge structure and authorise officers to proceed to procurement for a design and build contract to this purpose.

3) Approve an addition of £567k to the Capital Programme for the replacement of Footbridge B, with £412k to be funded from the Investment Infrastructure Fund and £155k to be funded from the Healthy Bromley Earmarked Reserve.

4) 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 contracts for the delivery of the footbridge replacement

ES20222

A Member noted that the report referenced three strategic waste sites. She enquired as to the location of the third site and it was clarified that this site was based in Swanley and that it was a Biogen composting site. Biogen was a private company. It was further noted that the weighbridges would be moving to the Bath Road side of the Depot and a discussion took place as to what impact in terms of noise and traffic this might have on local residents. The Head of Environmental Strategy, Technical Support and Commissioning responded and said that there would be no changes in terms of noise impact and traffic movement times. A Member commented that it had been reported that vehicles were entering and leaving the site before 7:00 am. There was a discussion concerning who owned those vehicles and it was stated that an agreement existed that there should be no vehicles entering or leaving the site before 7:00 am apart from emergencies.

A discussion took place concerning the use of an alternative number plate system to control traffic flow and the possibility of reintroducing a booking system. The Head of Environmental Strategy, Technical Support and Commissioning said that a number of options would be looked at. There would be twelve months to consider various options and mitigations and an updated report on these matters would be presented to the Committee in November 2023. It was anticipated that the major works on the site would commence early in 2024.

RESOLVED that the ECS PDS Committee support the recommendations of the report that would be presented to Full Council and the Executive.

Members noted that this report had already been scrutinised by the RR&H PDS Committee. Clarification was requested as to whether or not the tennis courts concerned were grass courts or hard courts and it was clarified that the courts being upgraded were hard tennis courts. This had been possible because of grant funding to the value of £230,000 from the LTA. 

The sites had been prioritised in terms of need and distance from population centres. The aim was not to build new tennis courts, but to refurbish existing ones. A Member enquired as to why there were no courts in her ward (Penge and Cator) that were on the list to be upgraded. The Sports and Leisure Manager said that he would look into the matter and report back to the Member who had made the enquiry.

RESOLVED that the Committee support the recommendation to the Executive that the LTA Grant be accepted, subject to standard terms and conditions and agree to the scheme being added to the capital programme.

ES20220

RESOLVED that the Council’s Net Zero Carbon Action Plan Reporting for Year 3 be noted.

ES20220

The Portfolio Holder for Traffic, Highways and Road Safety stated that he had spoken to the police on many occasions  and encouraged them to stop any lorries carrying waste in the early hours of the morning, as at that time there would be no licenced premises open where the waste could be deposited.

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

ES20223

A Member expressed concern regarding the audit of open spaces and hoped there would not be any selling off or re-purposingof them. The Assistant Director, Carbon Management and Greenspace responded and said that this was not the purpose of the audit, but rather the purpose was to see how the land and open spaces could be better utilised. A Member commented that it was sad that momentum had been lost and warned against ‘bureaucratic creep’ which strangled the enthusiasm of volunteers. She encouraged the Council to maintain close links with the Friends Forum. She suggested that it may be prudent (in view of lost momentum) for a six monthly update report to be presented to the Committee. 

RESOLVED that the Open Spaces Strategy—Year 1 Update be noted. 

ES20211

RESOLVED that the Contracts Register Report be noted.

ES20215

RESOLVED that the ECS Risk Register be noted.  

Members noted the Part 2 update on the Future Central Depot Security Provision.  

Members noted the Part 2 update concerning the Depot Infrastructure Works Stage 3.    

Members noted the Part 2 ECS Contracts Register.