Agenda item

PRE-DECISION SCRUTINY OF EXECUTIVE REPORTS

Members of the Committee are requested to bring their copy of the agenda for the Executive meeting on 26 May 2021

Minutes:

The Committee considered the following reports on the Part 1 agenda for the meeting of the Executive on 26 May 2021:

 

(6)  CHIEF EXECUTIVE’S UPDATE REPORT

 

The report provided the Executive with key updates on behalf of the senior leadership team across a number of areas including the response to the Covid-19 pandemic, COVID-19 Staff Wellbeing Survey, Return to office working approach, Arrangements for committee meetings, and Economic Development Strategy for 2021 – 2031.

 

The Director of Finance highlighted that the response from staff in relation to the Covid-19 pandemic had been incredible.  There had also been an amazing response to the Staff Wellbeing Survey with a number of staff speaking positively about working for the Council.  Thanks was expressed to Members for the support that had been provided throughout the last 14 months.

 

The Committee noted that there was now a need to look to the future and focus on rebuilding the economy.  A key aspect of this would be joint working with partners in the health sector and progress was already being made in this area.  There was now a focus on setting aside resources to begin to rebuild post-Covid.

 

Members highlighted the importance of building on the progress that had been made in relation to agile working, noting that the Covid pandemic had “fast forwarded” plans for agile working.  It was recognised that going forward there was a need to harness the benefits that could be delivered in terms of savings on office accommodation and reduction in Council estate.

 

The Committee noted that the Covid pandemic had significantly impacted on a number of Departments across the Council.  It was notable that there had been an unprecedented increase in the number of planning applications received and additional staff had been brought on board to manage this additional demand.

 

A Member highlighted the opportunities that had now presented in terms of holding remote Member-level meetings.  It was noted that back in 2012, the then Secretary of State for Communities, Housing and Local Government had dismissed the idea of remote meetings.  However, throughout the pandemic a highly successful programme of remote meetings had been held and this progress should now be sustained.  Although Members had now returned to in person meetings there should still be the option of remote meetings available to Members who were unable to attend in person meetings for whatever reason.  The technology was in place and had been proven to work.  The Chairman suggested that the Leader should be asked to make representations to this effect to the relevant Minister and it was suggested that the Council should provide a response to the Government Call for Evidence in respect of the future of remote meetings.

 

The Committee noted that the Economic Development Strategy would be considered by the Renewal, Recreation and Housing PDS Committee.

 

RESOLVED: That the Executive be recommended to note the report.

 

(7)   SUBSTANCE MISUSE SERVICES – LOT 1: ADULT SERVICES CONTRACT VARIATION; LOT 2: YOUNG PEOPLE SERVICES CONTRACT VARIATION

Report CSD21062

 

The Substance Misuse Service for Adults and Children was an integrated provision for drugs and alcohol services with the aim of moving an individual from the position of problematic drugs and/or alcohol misuse to a position of stability, improved health and positive engagement with employment or education and the community. On 21st May 2018, Executive approved the award of two contracts to Change Grow Live for the provision of Adults Substance Misuse Services and Young Peoples Substance Misuse Services. Both Contracts were awarded for a period 3 years commencing on 1 December 2018 to 30th November 2021, with an option to extend for a further period of up to 2 years. The Adult Service contact had an annual value of £1,349k and a whole life value (inclusive of extension option) of £6,745k. The Young People’s contract had an annual value of £149k and a whole life value (inclusive of the extension option) of £745k. On 8th April 2021, Public Health received a Section 31 Local Authority grant of £207k for a one-year non-recurring funding for schemes to support improvements in interventions to reduce drug related offending and deaths in 2021/22. It was proposed to utilise this grant via a variation to the existing Adults Substance Misuse contract. The report sought authorisation to draw down the Section 31 grant and the subsequent variation to the Adults Substance Misuse contract; and to extend both contracts in accordance with their terms. 

 

The Chairman reported that he had spoken with the Chairman of the Adult Care and Health PDS Committee who had no significant concerns surrounding the proposed decision although there was some disappointment around the timing of the decision which had prevented scrutiny by that Committee.

 

The Assistant Director for Public Health explained that the proposals to the Executive were to utilise a one-off grant to deliver improved treatment.  The proposed improvements would be delivered through the existing contract and this required the contract with the existing provider to be varied.  Members noted that challenging targets had been set in order to deliver the improvements and it was hoped that this would provide the necessary impetus to move the programme on.

 

Members noted that one of the specific conditions of the grant was to support adult ex-offenders in recognition of the pressures in this area.  Members further noted that the current provider already worked with ex-offenders and detailed consideration had been given to the most effective schemes for the use of the grant.  It was anticipated that use of the grant in this way and the multi-disciplinary approach being adopted would lead to system improvement.

 

The Committee noted that going forward the success of the grant in terms of the outcomes delivered would be scrutinised by the Adult Care and Health PDS Committee.

 

RESOLVED: That the Executive be recommended to approve

 

1.  the draw down of the total grant amount of £207k to be used as set out in Paragraphs 3.1 – 3.3.

2.  The variation of £177k to the Adults Substance Misuse Services Contract for a period of one year commencing 1st June 2021 and expiring on 31st May 2022

3.  The extension of the Adults Substance Misuse Services Contract for a period of two years from 1st December 2021 to 30th November 2023 at an annual value of £1,349k as allowed for within the Contract; and

4.  The extension of the Young People’s Substance Misuse Services Contract for a period of two years from 1st December 2021 to 30 November 2023 at an annual value of £149k as allowed for within the Contract.

 

 

At 9.50pm the Chairman proposed that the meeting guillotine be extended to 10.30pm to enable the remaining business on the agenda to be satisfactorily concluded.  The motion was seconded, put to the vote and CARRIED.

 

 

(8)   BIGGIN HILL AIRPORT LTD (BHAL) REQUEST TO VARY THE USER CLAUSE OF THE AIRPORT LEASE BETWEEN THE COUNCIL AND BHAL

  Report CSD21048

 

Having declared a disclosable pecuniary interest, Councillor Colin Hitchins left the meeting for the duration of this item and item 14 on the Executive agenda.

 

The Leader was present throughout the item via conference call to listen to the debate and hear the views of elected Members.

 

BHAL had formally notified the Council of their intention to seek to modify the definition of “Permitted User” in Clause 1 of the Lease.  They had requested that the Council approve the modification, but should the Council decide not to approve it then pursuant to their rights under section 84 of the Law of Property Act 1925 they would apply to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) for a more expansive modification of the Lease that would permit scheduled and non-scheduled commercial flights.

 

The Committee was requested to provide views on the following options:

 

1)  To agree to the proposal from BHAL to amend the user clause.

2)  To not agree to the proposal from BHAL to amend the user clause and should BHAL then decide to apply to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) to determine such a change then to contest such an application.

 

Noting that there was significant public interest in this item and to facilitate a full and thorough debate, the Chairman confirmed that each member of the Committee would be invited to speak in turn.

 

Speaking against the application by Biggin Hill Airport Ltd (BHAL) currently under consideration by the Committee, a Member noted the increased level of correspondence that had been received from local residents in opposition to the proposals.  The Member suggested that the decision that had to be taken by the Council boiled down to an issue of trust, the trust that the Council had in BHAL to honour commitments made and the trust that residents of the Borough could have in the Council to ensure that commitments were honoured.

 

Concerns were expressed around the overly aggressive stance being taken by BHAL in its approach to the Council and a Member suggested that some of the statements made by BHAL needed to be challenged, for example the assertion that the  lease had remained static.  A Member expressed surprise that BHAL had not approached this matter in a good faith, calm manner suggesting that the overly aggressive approach raised questions around the long-term intent of BHAL.  The Committee noted that there had been no prior approach by BHAL to discuss the application that had been made, instead they had relied on an entirely legal approach.

 

It was highlighted that the ban on fair paying passengers had been upheld in a  2002 court ruling, which the requested amendment would overturn.  A Member explained that it was unwise to alter this High Court backed decision as any alteration could result in the Council losing the protection of that High Court decision.  A Member highlighted that were this to be changed many residents would feel let down.  The Member highlighted that the main function of the lease was to protect local residents from the excesses of the airport, and it was important to remember that that confidence in the Council had been dented in 2015 with the concession in operating hours.

 

Members highlighted what they considered to be BHAL’s failure to fulfil previous promises that had been made such as the delivery of an aeronautical college at Biggin Hill and the development of a hotel.  However, the Committee heard that the decision not to progress an aeronautical college at Biggin Hill had been taken by London South East College (LSEC) and development of the hotel had now started after a period of delay.

 

It was recognised that BHAL was a business that was seeking to maximise profit but Members felt that these profits should not be at the expense of residential amenity.  Concerns were expressed around the ongoing environmental impact associated with the inevitable increase in the number of “Uber jets”.  Members also suggested that there appeared to be some inconsistencies in the requests being made by BHAL noting that the current proposal was to amend the user clause with an indication that if an application to the Upper Tribunal was made the request would be expanded.  Members recognised that the viability of the airport was an important consideration, however a search of Companies House records had revealed that in the last financial year BHAL had made a significant operating profit demonstrating that it was a highly profitable business without the need for this change.

 

In the alternative, a Member expressing support for BHAL’s request highlighted that consideration needed to focus on the request actually being made by BHAL, rather than some of the misinformation currently being circulated by opponents of the proposals.  The Member acknowledged that a number of residents had concerns but once they had been provided with the facts they had been reassured.  At the moment BHAL were simply seeking to amend the user clause, however if the matter went to tribunal and the Council lost it was likely this would result in a greater loss of control.

 

In support of the Airport’s proposals, a Member highlighted that there had been an airfield at Biggin Hill since 1917 and as such local residents moved to the area with the full knowledge of the airport.  The contract with BHAL had been in operation for 26 years and it was reasonable for any lessee to request changes that reflected evolving circumstances such as quieter jets.  The Member highlighted that the Committee was required to consider the reasonableness of the request and it was suggested that as BHAL were seeking a small change to its lease and this change was unlikely in his view to have a significant environmental impact or lead to an increased level of noise the request seemed reasonable.  The Committee was reminded that landlords had a duty not to be unreasonable in such matters and to agree this proposal for purely business aviation was a reasonable position to adopt.

 

A Member noted that until very recently they had received very little communication from residents complaining about the operation of the airport.  It was also highlighted that the airport was one of the largest employers in the Borough.  It was noted that over the last few years the airline industry had been responding to environmental challenges.

 

The Chairman noted that ward members had not been consulted for the Executive report. In lieu of this, he had written to the councillors for the following wards in the southern part of the borough for a summary of residents’ reactions to the proposal:

 

  • Hayes & Coney Hall
  • Bromley Common & Keston
  • Petts Wood & Knoll
  • Farnborough & Crofton
  • Orpington
  • Chelsfield & Pratts Bottom
  • Darwin
  • Biggin Hill

 

Councillors for the following wards confirmed significant opposition from residents to the proposed lease amendment:

 

  • Bromley Common & Keston
  • Petts Wood & Knoll
  • Farnborough & Crofton
  • Chelsfield & Pratts Bottom
  • Darwin
  • Biggin Hill (NB – Members for this ward felt that many of the concerns raised were based on an inaccurate view of the proposal due to misinformation)

 

He also noted that the Biggin Hill Airport Consultative Committee committee were notified of BHAL’s proposal on 24th May, less than two weeks before the airport’s deadline.

 

A Member noted that many residents felt that BHAL wished to remove the restrictions contained within the lease by a process of ‘salami-slicing’. The member also noted that it was difficult to reconcile any increase in flights with the spirit of the Council’s own commitment  to reach net zero by 2029, and at the national level, the target for CO2 emissions to be reduced by 78% by 2035.

 

The Chairman proposed that the Executive be recommended to not agree to the proposal from BHAL to amend the user clause and should BHAL then

decide to apply to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) to determine such a change then to contest such an application.  The motion was seconded by Councillor Robert Evans, put to the vote and CARRIED. 

 

The Chairman requested that the vote be recorded:

 

For

Against

Abstain

Cllr Dykes

Cllr Bear

Cllr Cartwright

Cllr Tickner

Cllr Jeal

Cllr Evans

Cllr Onslow

Cllr Gabbert

Cllr Marlow

Cllr Bennett

Cllr M. Stevens

 

Cllr Wilkins

Cllr Tunnicliffe

 

RESOLVED: That the Executive be recommended to not agree to the proposal from BHAL to amend the user clause and should BHAL then

decide to apply to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) to determine such a change then to contest such an application.