Agenda item

Report ES18035

Members considered the draft 2018/21 Environment & Community Services Portfolio Plan setting out the Portfolio’s key service outcomes, associated issues (service drivers), aims, and performance measures.

A review of 2017/18 performance against the Portfolio Plan was also appended to Report ES18035as was a list of Formally Adopted Environmental Policies. 

With specific aims constantly evolving to reflect new challenges, a number of initiatives would be undertaken in 2018/19 including: 

·  completing the £11.8m highways capital programme;

·  implementing a number of major town centre public realm improvement projects;

·  improving parking management with the new contractor;

·  delivering local enhancements including tree planting, flower beds, and improved street furniture;

·  developing the successful Green Garden Waste Collection Scheme to reach more customers and to reduce traffic at Household Waste & Recycling Centres; and

·  supporting delivery of commissioning options for the Portfolio’s larger contracts from 2019 onwards.

Including a limited number of carefully chosen indicators to measure performance against service outcomes, the Plan outlined performance for 2017/18 and the previous three years (for comparison) along with targets for 2017/18 and subsequent three years (to gauge ambition).

A six-month progress update would be provided to the Committee’s meeting on 20th November 2018. Additionally, as a performance overview for each meeting, a dashboard of performance indicators against targets would be provided with a RAG status assigned to each (similar in format to the 2017/18 performance summary at Appendix 2 to Report ES18035).

The Portfolio Plan’s aims are delivered through the service contracts summarised in the ECS Contracts Register; delivery is also taken forward within the context of the Council’s formally adopted environmental policies.

In considering the Plan, Members put a number of questions to the Portfolio Holder.

On Fix My Street, the Portfolio Holder indicated that the facility can be accessed via the “Report it” tab on the home page of the Council’s website or via the Fix My Street Link (accessed from the home page via letter F). The reporting link had also been published in Environment Matters and Ward Members were encouraged to promote the facility.

For large amounts of paper and card generated by local business, high street businesses can work together to make their own recycling arrangements, often through facilities organised via a Town Centre Business Improvement District (BID).  Council facilities were effectively a disposer of last resort for business and the Council was unable to compete with large organisations such as BIFFA plc which concentrate on locations with many adjacent businesses. 

With weekend opening of the Waldo Road and Churchfields facilities more limited (compared to weekdays), it was suggested that residents might be discouraged from visiting the sites at weekends (often more convenient for residents at work in the week). However, the opening hours are limited by planning requirements and major noise abatement measures (effectively, covered facilities) would be needed to extend weekend opening. The Development Control Committee or its Planning Sub-Committees would need to consider any proposals. Open paper and cardboard containers at the sites had also been replaced with enclosed containers having an aperture size to prevent contaminants being deposited e.g. polystyrene; material prices for paper and cardboard had reduced and China had placed restrictions on paper/cardboard imports. 

Residents not currently recycling were encouraged to do so through an ongoing recycling campaign. More residents were also encouraged to use the Council’s food waste collection service (current studies indicated that food waste comprised some 24% of black bag waste). Where needed, residents can also order extra recycling containers via the Council’s website. Flats had a lower recycling rate and presented challenges. To help ensure facilities at new flatted developments, comments are made where possible at Planning Stage. Within a block of flats, an item placed incorrectly risked contaminating other items in a container and there was a desire to see the position improve e.g. taking forward initiatives with freeholders and having smaller apertures for containers of certain materials.

A kerbside collection service for textiles had also been investigated previously but conclusions suggested the provision would not be economically viable. However, it was possible to take unwanted shoes and clothes to many of the Council’s recycling banks and some charities offered a doorstep collection of clothes/textiles. The Council was doing its best within budget on recycling and was one of the top recycling authorities in London. 

On street cleansing and autumn leafing, measures had been taken to identify when tree species shed their leaves and to coordinate removal accordingly. Horse chestnut trees were known to be the first to shed leaves and roads known to have such trees receive early clearance. For some locations known to have a variety of species e.g. Summer Hill, Chislehurst, leaf fall would be present over a longer period; it was intended to visit a location once for clearance and then collect further leaves through the normal street cleansing cycles. Consideration was being given to a bespoke FMS response to leaf fall reports rather than indicate when a cleansing visit is next programmed. 

On transport and the percentage of children travelling to school by car, it was suggested that the target of <30 for each of the next three years should improve on actual performance over previous years or at least reflect a stable position. However, there was no complacency on reducing car travel to school, even though car numbers on the road continued to rise; support also continued for schools in encouraging alternative travel modes. As the school cohort changed every year, even to maintain a stable position required effort.

On the aim to reduce road casualties, the methodology used by the Metropolitan Police to collect statistics on accident victims seriously injured changed in 2016. This affected figures on numbers Killed or Seriously Injured (KSI) and as a consequence numbers started to rise. Data cleansing was now necessary to align pre-2016 performance with subsequent and current performance. Reference was also made to the Mayor of London’s Vision Zerotarget on casualties killed or seriously injured on London’s roads.

Responding to a Member question, the Portfolio Holder referred to school visits highlighting for older students the need for considerate driving and the dangers/consequences of drink/drug driving. Emergency services are also represented on the visits. Additionally, cycle training is available to young people of varying ages. On future performance targets for Children killed/seriously injured in road accidents (NI 48), it was highlighted that the target for each of the next three years in the Portfolio Plan appeared incorrect. 

The Chairman encouraged more performance indicators and felt that some targets could be more ambitious e.g. operatives on collection rounds should return emptied bins to the place they were retrieved. A greater use of public satisfaction surveys could also be made to gauge views from residents. However, emptied bins not in their original location could be attributed to reasons such as windy weather. (Democratic Services note: following the meeting, it was confirmed that this would not be a KPI moving forward but any failure on the part of the contractor to return boxes to the correct place would be managed through the contract and penalties applied if applicable). More generally, it was necessary to choose funding priorities and achieve targets against the budgetary framework. In the current funding climate additional resources for change are difficult to provide and in a number of areas maintaining current performance required work. It was always an aim to ensure that residents become less inconvenienced by traffic congestion and waste matters in the borough. 

The Chairman also suggested that the Council might want to consider bidding for funds from TfL’s Liveable Neighbourhoods Programme. The Portfolio Holder confirmed that the programme would be considered but from schemes submitted by other boroughs, only one in three bids had been successful in obtaining funds. Any bid submitted by L B Bromley would need to be successful and for TfL’s Quietways Programme the Council had chosen successful schemes. The next Local Implementation Plan (LIP) was also being written for submission to TfL. If approved, funds would be provided with decisions then needed on funding priorities. The Portfolio Holder welcomed any Member input to the LIP. 

On parking services, the Chairman noted an absence of targets for matters such as out of date payment machines, unable to accept new coins or bank notes. Referring to the quality of provision at Bromley town centre, the Chairman also enquired on levels of customer satisfaction and asked that parking targets be reviewed.

RESOLVED that:

(1) the draft Portfolio Plan (Appendix 1 to Report ES18035) be noted;

(2) the 2017/18 performance (Appendix 2 to Report ES18035) be noted;

(3) the formally adopted environmental policies, against which the Plan is delivered (Appendix 3 to Report ES18035), be noted; and

(4) the Environment & Community Services Portfolio Holder be recommended to take into account the views of the Committee, and 2018/19 budget, in endorsing the outcomes, aims, and performance measures set out in the draft 2018/21 Environment & Community Services Portfolio Plan.