Agenda item

Members of the Committee are requested to have a copy of the agenda for the Executive meeting on 11^th February 2015 at the meeting.

 

Report CSD15011

 

The Committee considered the following reports on the part 1 agenda for the meeting of the Executive on 11^th February 2015.

 

(5)  Budget Monitoring 2014/15

Report FSD15008

 

The report set out the budget monitoring position for 2014/15 based on expenditure and activity levels up to November 2014. Considerable progress had been made in reducing the projected overspend in Care Services.

 

A Member questioned the need for the Council to spend money on a survey relating to Biggin Hill Airport when the airport operator had already carried out an extensive consultation. It was explained that the Council as decision-maker had to carry out its own independent survey and could not rely on work initiated by an interested party. 

 

RESOLVED that the recommendations be supported. 

 

(6)  2015/16 Council Tax

 Report FSD15009

 

The Committee considered the draft 2015/16 revenue budget proposals. Confirmation of the GLA precept was still awaited, but it was anticipated that the 1.3% reduction proposed in the GLA’s draft budget would not be changed. Notification of the final grant settlement had been received, and the Council would be getting an additional £202k. However, there was also a significant reduction in funding for discretionary housing payments from £683k to £509k. In response to a question, the Director confirmed that the current £683k was fully utilised.

 

RESOLVED that the recommendations be supported. 

 

(7)  Capital Programme Monitoring Q3 2014/15 and Annual Capital Review 2015 to 2019

Report FSD15014

 

The report summarised the current position on capital expenditure and receipts and presented new capital schemes proposed by Directors through the annual capital review process. The main focus was on the continuation of existing schemes, with only two new schemes being put forward.

 

Post-completion reports were due to go to Portfolio Holders before the end of the financial year for four schemes. A Member queried the use of capital to fund the relocation of exhibitions from the current Bromley Museum at The Priory to the Central Library – it was confirmed that the expenditure was treated as capital due to the capital receipt that could be received through disposal of the Priory as part of the project.

 

RESOLVED that the recommendations be supported. 

 

(8)  Community Services Integration

Report CS14075

 

The Care Services PDS Committee had held a meeting with the Health and Wellbeing Board on 29^th January 2015 to examine the options for progressing integration of adult social care assessment and care management functions with community health services commissioned by Bromley Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG). It was proposed that the Executive authorise a steering group to explore the options further with the CCG and with the existing provider, Bromley Health Care.

 

The Committee was informed that the Executive had already set aside a budget of £250k should external advice be required. 

 

RESOLVED that the recommendations be supported. 

 

(9)  Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards

Report CS14107

 

The report analysed the implications of the recent Supreme Court judgement relating to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and sought approval for additional funding of £163,345 in 2014/15 and provision of £628,040 in the 2015/16 budget. 

 

RESOLVED that the recommendations be supported. 

 

(10)  Commissioning of Speech and Language Therapy

Report ED15039

 

Speech and Language Therapy and Occupational Therapy for children and young people was currently commissioned from Bromley Healthcare through two separate contracts let by the Council and the Bromley Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG). In line with the Children and Families Act 2014, it was proposed to develop robust joint commissioning arrangements via a section 75 agreement with Bromley CCG, with the CCG being lead commissioner.

 

The proposals had been supported by Education PDS Committee 

 

RESOLVED that the recommendations be supported. 

 

(11)  Long Term Care for Older People – Extra Care Housing Supply and Demand

Report CS1424

 

The Committee received a report on supply and demand for extra care housing in the borough. Affinity Sutton had identified that Lubbock House, which provided 30 beds, was not viable in the long term due to its poor condition and the need for significant investment. As a result it was proposed to begin formal consultation on the decommissioning of Lubbock House.

 

RESOLVED that the recommendations be supported. 

 

(Councillor William Huntington-Thresher declared an interest during consideration of this item as a member of the Affinity Sutton Regional Scrutiny Board.)

 

(12)  Gateway Report on Tenancy Sustainment Services for Young People 

Report CS14118

 

The Committee received a report reviewing the provision of tenancy sustainment services to young people and making recommendations for commissioning when the current contracts ended on 30^th August 2015. The Care Services PDS Committee had supported the recommendations at its meeting on 21^st January 2015 but it had also noted that some of the accommodation was quite poor and the number of incidents appeared to be high – the Chairman had requested more detail.

 

RESOLVED that the recommendations be supported. 

 

(13) Refurbishment of Beacon House

Report ED15055

 

The report updated Members on the feasibility study at Beacon House and proposals for its refurbishment to enable it to open as Burwood School’s alternate KS4 and KS5 provision. It was noted that the proposed use of £3m Dedicated Schools Grant to provide a substantial part of the funding for the project was subject to Department for Education approval.

 

RESOLVED that the recommendations be supported. 

 

(14) Havelock Road Recreation Ground, Bromley – La Fontaine Free School

Report DR15/102

 

Report withdrawn.

 

(15) Gateway Review 01,1 & 2 Approval of 2015/16 Operational Building Maintenance Budgets, Planned Maintenance Programmes and Preferred Procurement Option

Report DRR15001

 

The report set out proposals for the 2015/16 Building Maintenance programme, including the budget, the criteria used to assemble the programme and the preferred procurement option. 

 

RESOLVED that the recommendations be supported. 

 

(16) The Future of Anerley Town Hall

Report DRR15/002

 

The Committee considered a report setting out options for the future of Anerley Town Hall, and also viewed a video commissioned by the Crystal Palace Community Development Trust showing the activities carried out in the building.

 

At its meeting on 29^th February 2015 the Renewal and Recreation PDS Committee had considered the same report and had recommended that the Executive approve option B, which was to grant a 40 year lease to the Crystal Palace Community Development Trust on full repairing terms at a peppercorn rent, but excluding the overflow car park at the rear which could be sold. This would allow the Trust to lever in external funding to maintain the building, but the Trust had indicated that they would require the Council to resolve the subsidence issue and upgrade the business centre IT. The Committee also suggested investigating whether mobile phones could replace the telephone system which was reaching the end of its life.

 

As the Council’s Heritage Champion, Councillor Nicholas Bennett stated that it was important to retain the building which was the only heritage building in the area. 

 

RESOLVED that Option B be supported. 

 

(17) A New Approach for Bromley Museum

Report DRR14/116

 

The report set out proposals to close the Council’s existing museum service, based at The Priory in Orpington, and relocate its exhibitions to the Central Library as part of the Council’s programme to achieve substantial savings. The proposals had been considered by the Renewal and Recreation PDS Committee at its meeting on 29^th January 2015, which had supported the proposals but added that a working group comprising the Council and volunteers from local history associations should be set up to assist with setting up new displays and exhibitions. 

 

A number of Members commented that although the building was the oldest in the borough, and the Lubbock Collection it housed was of national importance, the existing museum was poor and shabby and that the opportunity should be taken to provide improved displays at a venue that would attract more visitors. The building itself could support a number of alternative uses.

 

Some Members commented that Orpington was not vibrant and was being drained of assets. They felt that more investment was needed, including retaining facilities such as the Museum. However, other Members pointed to the new BID and substantial investment in recent years including the High Street improvements, the re-located Library and the cinema development.

 

The Committee was concerned that the building should not be neglected or allowed to deteriorate if the museum was moved. A Member also suggested further examination of the costs of moving the Museum. 

 

RESOLVED that the recommendations be supported and the report on options for The Priory prepared in July 2014 should be re-circulated to the Executive for their meeting. 

 

(18) Closure of Beckenham, Bromley and West Wickham Public Toilets 

Report ES14094

 

The Committee considered a proposal to save £67k from the closure of the Beckenham, Bromley and West Wickham public toilets, declare the Beckenham property surplus to requirements and confirm the arrangements for community toilets in these town centres.

 

A petition from local residents and business people containing more than 250 valid signatures had been received urging the Council to keep the Beckenham toilets open and complaining that the alternative provision was inadequate, being too distant or having irregular opening hours. The lead petitioner, Pam Notcutt, Co-Chairman of the Beckenham Society, attended the meeting and spoke in support of the petition. She argued that as the figures for running costs of the facilities were uncertain it would be wrong to close the toilets to achieve savings. She pointed out that there were no usage figures and the hours of opening of the alternative facilities quoted in the report were incorrect. She referred to a previous attempt to close the Beckenham toilets in 2010, since when a community toilet had operated in parallel with the public toilets, which she argued was a waste of money, and she queried why the Council had not used the intervening time to seek an alternative operator. She added that the proposals to add three new premises to the existing three community toilets in Beckenham were totally inadequate. She felt that the Renewal and Recreation PDS Committee would support the retention of the toilets because of their positive impact on footfall in the high street. Overall, she contended that Beckenham was a special case, as it did not have the large business premises of other centres, the cost of running the alternative provision would exceed that of keeping the toilets open. She urged the Council to invest in the toilets, possibly by creating a small café on the site alongside slightly smaller toilets, rather than demolish them. 

 

Members discussed the proposals and made a number of comments as follows –

• footfall had actually increased at Bexleyheath when the toilets there had been closed;

·  food outlets had to provide better quality toilet facilities;

·  in Orpington, local businesses in the Business Improvement District (BID) had decided that public toilets were a priority and had decided to invest in refurbishing them;

·  there was no information on usage;

·  all residents associations in Beckenham were strongly opposed to the closure there;

·  the toilets should be retained as part of the Beckenham High Street improvement scheme;

• the larger shops in Beckenham should be asked to sponsor the existing toilets.

 

Members also stated that directions to the community toilets needed to be improved and Officers confirmed that there were proposals to improve the signage on-street. It was suggested that this should also include smarter on-line apps (Richmond was suggested as a good example.) It was noted that the building had just been registered as an asset of community value, preventing its immediate disposal. Overall, the Committee concluded that in the light of the Council’s severe budget pressures the recommendation to close the toilets should be supported, but there were also comments that more imaginative thought should be given to these sorts of facilities.

 

RESOLVED that the recommendations be supported, and that the Executive should ensure that improved directions to the community toilets be provided both on-street and on the Council website.