Agenda item

Report ES13024

Members considered the draft Environment Portfolio Plan for 2013/16.

Report ES13024 also summarised the recommended priorities for the Plan, providing background on their significance as the key outcomes to be sought in 2013/16.

On expanding take up of the Green Garden Waste (GGW) collection service, the Chairman wanted to see a long-term target figure for the number of residents using the service. He also wanted a date in the plan for introducing a kerbside collection service for textiles. The aim of the GGW collection service was to reduce congestion around waste sites so a high take-up was preferred. The Chairman understood that other outer-London boroughs had high service take-ups so it should be achievable over the longer term. The Portfolio Holder indicated that this would increase incrementally.

Councillor Fookes highlighted an occurrence where notices had been left advising that vehicles were not to be parked in a street pending a thorough clean that was to take place. Vehicles were moved but the cleaning did not take place. He felt that improvements were necessary on informing residents of forthcoming events such as street cleans. The Chairman reminded Members and Officers of his suggestion at the Committee’s meeting on 15^th January 2013 for the Council’s website to indicate when a street was last cleaned (and when future cleaning work was scheduled). He also asked that a specific commitment be made to improve street cleanliness. Councillor Fookes also suggested that the Council’s intranet system, “One Bromley”, indicate in chart form the responsibilities of officers. He also indicated that it was necessary to improve street cleaning in the area he represented. Where waste was being left in an area and in order to assist the successful prosecution of offenders, he advocated the use of CCTV to capture an incident of waste being deposited. 

On extending the trial use of a private enforcement company to issue fixed penalty notices for littering and dog fouling, Councillor Adams understood that the company had yet to issue a fixed penalty notice for dog fouling. He felt that serious effort was needed in this regard. The Portfolio Holder indicated that the company could be requested to have a focus on securing dog fouling prosecutions. He advocated trialling such an enforcement focus, suggesting a trial in Bromley based on a cross-party approach.

Councillor Grainger had a number of comments. In the context of recycling and waste, he referred to waste carpets being heavy and adding to landfill tax. He suggested that recycling carpet waste be considered. He supported the responsibilities of officers being available on One Bromley, highlighting functions in the Department and not simply job titles. On enforcement against dog fouling, and noting that owners often walked their dog early morning or at dusk, he hoped that enforcement officers would be on patrol during those times. He also advocated the use of figures instead of, or in addition to, percentages. On highway maintenance, he advocated maintenance works to lengths of roads as necessary and for improving transportation he felt that reducing journey times should apply not just to priority routes but to all routes. He also preferred not to have casualty figures as targets.

Comments made in response to the points raised included those summarised below.

·  The road safety targets were a requirement for TfL and were needed to help secure investment in road safety initiatives and schemes. They were also prefaced with “no more than”. In reality accidents would continue to occur but the targets for reductions were stretching.

·  An aim for improving transportation was to “improve the road network and journey times for all users”.

·  Performance Indicators NI 168 and NI 169 for highway maintenance were technical definitions which could be provided along with details of the footway surface indicator for town centres. 

On improving transportation, Councillor Adams supported lobbying for extensions of the DLR from Lewisham to Bromley but felt that extending Tramlink to Crystal Palace should also be an aim. The Portfolio Holder supported the Crystal Palace link but highlighted the priority of extending the DLR to Bromley. This was the highest aspiration for the borough followed by a Tramlink extension to Crystal Palace and then a link from Beckenham junction to Bromley. 

Councillor Adams felt that any Beckenham junction link was some way into the future. On extending Tramlink to Crystal Palace, he suggested the Council could possibly receive support from nearby Local Authorities. Tramlink access to Crystal Palace would benefit many residents in the Borough’s North West who used the Crystal Palace node. The Portfolio Holder referred to Crystal Palace having recently received London Overground; residents from Bromley and beyond would benefit from a DLR extension, particularly in view of issues a Jubilee line proposal would bring. Councillor Adams highlighted that it was TfL money and the Overground had enhanced Crystal Palace so providing further reason to support a Tramlink extension. Councillor Fookes supported comments from Councillor Adams. Councillor Milner saw a DLR extension as a big request compared with a Tramlink extension. He was concerned that the bigger request might jeopardise the smaller request.

Noting commentary reference to improved park security supported by fixed penalty notices for dog related crime and close Police liaison for a joint approach to dangerous dog offences, the Vice Chairman referred to an incident of a dangerous dog killing another dog. She felt that a strong campaign was necessary to illustrate that dangerous dogs were not controllable. It was indicated that work on dangerous dogs was led by officers in the Public Protection Division of Environment and Community Services, with support from Parks and Greenspace in relation to parks. The Director confirmed that the matter would be taken forward as a cross portfolio issue and officers would look at having a campaign. 

On support to schools, developers and businesses for implementing Travel Plans, Councillor Grainger suggested the position on traffic and congestion is monitored before and after Travel Plan implementation. He felt there had been no substantial evidence to justify a need for Travel Plans. Concerning transport interchanges, Councillor Grainger also highlighted interconnectivity and improved parking at stations. Members were advised that Orpington station would have double decked parking. Construction on the second tier would start later in the year and it was intended to improve the entrance to the station from Crofton Road, reducing the impact on local residents. It was confirmed that Network Rail would fund the car park development. The Chairman referred to a forthcoming Public Transport Liaison Committee (scheduled for 25^th April 2013) which would provide an opportunity for South Eastern representatives to be present. 

On extending the New Beckenham (Lennard Road) car park, Councillor Fookes asked that his opposition to the development be recorded. He explained that the location was an area of green space. For planning considerations, Councillor Grainger highlighted that a double decked extension provided a minimum space. If the Lennard Road car park extension had taken place earlier Councillor Adams indicated that the Copers Cope Controlled Parking Zone might not have been necessary and there might not have been problems with parking in the area.

RESOLVED that the Portfolio Holder be recommended to:

(1)  endorse the aims, activities and outcome measures proposed in the draft Portfolio Plan appended to Report ES13024, taking into consideration the budget for 2013/14 which had already been agreed  and the comments of the Environment PDS Committee; and

(2)  delegate the setting of detailed service outcome expectations for 2013/14 to the Executive Director of Environment and Community Services, in consultation with the Environment Portfolio Holder and the Chairman of the Environment PDS Committee.