Agenda item

CSD 18166

Members of the Working Group noted the matters that had arisen from the previous meeting held on 4^th October 2018.

It had been noted in the matters arising report that Mr Kevin Munnelly would provide an update with respect to parking contraventions and the lack of enforcement that was apparent after 9.30pm on Friday and Saturday evenings.

Mr Munnelly said that this was an ongoing issue. It seemed that after 9.30pm on Friday and Saturday evenings, people were parking on pavements and on double yellow lines because the contraventions were not being enforced. It had been mentioned in a previous meeting, that civil enforcement officers had been hesitant to undertake enforcement action during these periods due to fear of abuse and possible violence. The Chairman stated that enforcement should take place and that the police should be asked to help if required.

It was noted that the use of CCTV cameras to facilitate enforcement was not current LBB policy. The Chairman expressed the view that a parking enforcement blitz was required with the help of the police, and that the press office should be asked to cover it.

The Group was pleased to note that the yellow lines in the Conservation Area had been repainted as required.

The Chairman referred to the matter of town signs being installed, but with the Beckenham motif missing. After investigation it was discovered that the motif was not on the signs previously. It was agreed that if the motifs were found in the future, they should then be added to the signs.  

A discussion took place concerning the matter of cleaning in Beckenham, particularly in the vicinity of Beckenham Junction. It had been resolved previously that cleaning should be undertaken with a different type of chemical before the meeting. This had taken place as planned and bicarbonate of soda had been used, but had proved ineffective.

The Chairman raised the matter of chewing gum removal kits for businesses. Mr Munnelly stated that LBB could provide a ‘gum busting’ service, but this would be an additional service provision and at extra cost. It was noted that the BID in Bromley had paid for a gum busting service.

The Chairman and the Working Group were disappointed that an enhanced cleaning regieme had not been included in the contract for the major scheme works. They felt that this was not what had been promised and asked what needed to be done going forward to rectify this. Mr Munnelly responded that regular cleaning was required, and that this had been reported back. He suggested that Ward Councillors should request an enhanced cleaning service from the Portfolio Holder for Environment. 

It was commented that with respect to Beckenham Junction, additional problems had been caused because the wrong granite had been laid originally. Mr Munnelly stated that this matter was now being dealt with at Director level. The Chairman was hopeful that a credit could be applied because of this and if this did take place, the credit should come back to the Beckenham Scheme as an enhanced cleaning service. 

Mr Munnelly assured that the matter would be reported back to the Project Board and to the Renewal, Recreation and Housing PDS Committee. He stated that when he received feedback from the Directors, he would update the Working Group.

The Matters Arising report had noted that one bus shelter still needed to be installed near Fairfield Road, and that the Chairman had been encouraging officers to chase TfL to carry out the relevant actions. Mr Oliver was chasing TfL to complete the works. The supply and fitting of the new bus stop was going to cost £20k.

The Chairman felt that TfL had shown a degree of disregard for the public in the way that they had sited bus shelters obstructively in the centre of footways. He was also displeased that without consultation, TfL were siting private toilets for bus drivers on public land in the Borough. 

It had also been resolved at the previous meeting that Mr Munnelly would report back on the original budget costings, as Mr Goy had requested a comprehensive update on the project’s finances. Mr Munnelly stated that the billing for the scheme had not been finalised yet. He clarified that East Architects had been paid 21% of the design fees and that the headline figures were in line with the original estimates. Mr Munnelly also pointed out the areas where there had been a draw down on contingency funds, and said that the scheme costs had not been finalised yet. Further to the oral report by Mr Munnelly, the Chairman let Mr Goy have sight of a brief summary of the expenditure. Mr Goy said that this was not  provided in the detail that he had requested – and he was disappointed that he was not able to keep a copy of  the budget information table that he had received sight of. Some figures had been presented only as percentages of a subtotal.

Concerning the figures presented, it was noted that the payments to design consultant Julian Lewis of East Architects were 21% of the tabled design fees of £342k; from which Mr Goy inferred this was about £72k. Further work on the design had been carried out by FM Conway at 57% of the design budget.

Some of the contingency money had been spent on:

·  design changes to the ‘pad parking bays’. It had been determined that metal frameworks were additionally necessary to strengthen them

·  a new pelican crossing where previously a zebra crossing was intended

·  a Mayor of London / Transport for London shortfall in previously-agreed Principal Routes agreed funding to the Council. They had indicated mid-project their intention not to provide the previously-agreed sum of £250k for Principal Route carriageway resurfacing as part of their new London-wide moratorium on such spending. The Council had contested this but had had to cover £50k from the Scheme Budget to cover a reduction of that amount from the previously-agreed grant.

Mr Munnelly explained that it would be usual for a post scheme completion report to be drafted which would go to the relevant scrutiny committee for scrutiny and noting. The Chairman suggested that a post contract meeting should be held in April, where the project’s budget/financials could be looked at. He gave an assurance that all of the figures would be made public when finalised. 

A discussion took place concerning the cleaning of the Beckenham Green Canopy. This matter had been a cause of frustration for all concerned as it had still not been determined where the alleged £2k per annum funding for the cleaning budget would come from. The matter had been referred to the BID Company, but they had been unable to commit. The matter had additionally been referred to the Executive Director of Environment and Community Services to resolve. The Chairman recommended that in the meantime, the planning application should be progressed. 

RESOLVED that

1) A late evening parking enforcement blitz was required, and that the recommendation be referred to the Renewal, Recreation and Housing PDS Committee.

2)  If it was decided that a credit was owed because of the wrong granite being laid at Beckenham Junction, then the Working Group members should be notified, and the credit be applied to the scheme for enhanced cleaning at Beckenham Junction.

3) Mr Oliver continue to chase TfL so that the outstanding bus stop could be installed.

4) A post contract completion meeting should be held in April 2019,  when the project’s budget/financials could be made public and examined in greater detail.

5) The planning application for the Beckenham Canopy should be progressed.