Agenda item

CSD 19069

Mr Warner updated the Group regarding the installation of bus shelters that had been ordered from TfL. One bus shelter was left to be installed and TfL had been asked to re-quote. LBB had been in regular contact with TfL in an effort to move things forward. It was anticipated that ‘countdown units’ would be installed on bus stops which previously had units within the next two weeks.

The Group was pleased to note that the requested ‘parking enforcement blitz’ had taken place and had been successful. There had been no confrontations and the police had not been required.

Mr Warner advised that progress had been made regarding the issue of whether or not a credit was due because the wrong granite had been laid in the vicinity of Beckenham Junction Station. What had been agreed was that a special clean would be undertaken and a sealant applied. The sealant was guaranteed for five years. There would be no direct financial compensation. Councillor Wells asked what would happen if the process did not work. He, (along with Cllr Josh King) expressed reservations concerning the proposal. There was a concern expressed that the cleaning could be messy and disruptive. It was suggested that an ‘acoustic barrier’ barrier be used to limit noise disruption.  Ms Pyne said that the process would probably take somewhere in the region of 7 to 10 days. Two machines may be required to undertake the work, and that there would be a need to keep the whole area clean (about 900 square metres) before the sealing work took place subsequent to cleaning.

Ms Groundsell asked why the granite was not being replaced. Mr Warner responded that if this was done it would cause significant disturbance and it was likely that the work would take a month to complete.

A discussion took place concerning the merits and demerits around cleaning/sealing, as opposed to replacing the granite. It was suggested that the original granite that had been laid was not the quality of granite that had been specified originally. Mr Warner responded that the granite was within the remit of the original specification in terms of its quality, and also regarding the way it was laid—the only issue was the matter of colour.

Mr Goy asked if the Council was getting a good deal, and suggested the use of terracotta bricks.

Councillor Allen enquired if the guarantee relating to the sealant was subject to any cleaning regieme that had to be undertaken by LBB. Mr Warner responded that this was not the case, and that in fact, excess cleaning would cause the sealant to wear away. A similar sealant had been used by Westminster Council. It was agreed that the details of the sealant should be provided to officers.

The group noted the updates concerning the Canopy and the Burnhill Road Car Parking Zone. It was mentioned that the yellow lines in Kelsey Square were of poor quality and were already broken.

The Group noted the update on the disused telephone box outside of Kelsey House. Councillor Wells asked if LBB could simply take enforcement action and remove it. He wanted to know how LBB could move forward. Mr Warner responded that the way forward was through a negotiated solution. It was noted that this particular telephone box was a ‘New World’ telephone box, and that there was another one quite near it that belonged to BT. BT did not need planning permission for their box, just advertising consent. Cllr Tickner wondered if this could be challenged.

The Group was pleased to note that progress had been made in resolving the matter of the up-lighting at the Nat West Bank. The tree up-lights had been replaced at the contractor’s expense. Mr Goy referred to the contractor’s green plastic barriers that in his view were an eyesore, and he asked what they were for. Mr Warner stated that they were a temporary safety measure and probably covering up holes from excavations. 

Mention was made of parking problems by Hak’s Barbers and by Prezzo’s. Mention was made of a street sign in the vicinity of Kelsey Square, which was indicating that access was available to Kelsey Lane, whereas in fact this was really ‘no entry’. It was asked if this could be changed to show that it was pedestrian access only and a no through road for vehicles. 

Councillor Wells asked David Wood for an update regarding the heritage plaques. Mr Wood responded that he felt that this important part of the upgrade project had just been ‘put in a drawer’. Mr Warner responded that the procurement process was underway, and that once the contract had been awarded in conjunction with Penge plaques, the final wording and designs could be considered. He was not able to provide a timescale at the meeting for the installation of the plaques, but promised to provide an update via the Committee Clerk.

Ms Morphy drew attention to the fact that there were still parking issues in Burnhill Road. Vehicles were still parking on driveways and pavements. She asked what could be done regarding enforcement action, and it was suggested that she contact the Portfolio Holder for Public Protection and Enforcement—Councillor Kate Lymer.

RESOLVED that:

1) Details of the  proposed sealant to be used at Beckenham Junction should be provided to officers.

2) Mr Warner will provide an update regarding the timescale for the installation of the Heritage Plaques via the Committee Clerk.