Agenda and minutes

There were none.

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 31 January 2023 as an accurate record.

The minutes of the meeting held on 31 January 2023 were agreed as an accurate record.

Members are invited to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests (DPIs) and other registrable and non-registrable interests they may have in relation to any item(s) of business on today’s agenda.

There were none.

To receive notice of any business not on the agenda which in the opinion of the Chair, by reason of special circumstances, be considered as a matter of urgency.

There were no items of urgent business.

For the Sub-Committee to receive a presentation on the Specification for re-procurement of the Waste, Recycling and Street Cleansing Contract.

The Sub-Committee considered a report set out on pages 17 to 28 of the agenda, which provided an update on the Waste, Recycling and Street Cleansing Contract Specification. The Director of Sustainable Communities introduced the item and went through the presentation at Appendix A.

The Chair highlighted the ‘Options Appraisal’ and asked whether any options had been disregarded at this stage. The Director of Sustainable Communities explained that the only option that had been discounted was that of extending the current contract past 2025; delivery of services by in-house provision, re-procurement or Local Authority Trading Company were still on the table for consideration. The Chair asked if there had been consideration of delivering different elements of the service through a mix of these options and the Sub-Committee heard that this was still a possibility.

The Chair asked if officers were confident that the Council was within the timeline for delivering the possible options that had been set out, noting the need to account for the Greater London Authority (GLA) Collection Conformity assessment. The Sub-Committee heard that the GLA only looked at the collection element of the service and that the current provision already met the requirements of the GLA. Members heard that the GLA submission had already been undertaken, and that approval could take up to 108 days, which sat within the proposed timeline for the final officer recommendation to Cabinet. On the procurement pack, Members heard that officers were running activity for all options in parallel, and it was acknowledged that the timelines were tight but achievable. The Director of Sustainable Communities explained that, if it were decided to go out to the market, then conversations would be consolidated where possible. The aim was for any contract to be awarded by early 2024, if this was the option that was chosen, to ensure there were 12 months for a contractor to purchase vehicles and be ready to deliver services.

The Sub-Committee asked how it was possible to ensure that any Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for the new contract would be achievable, and how these would compare to other similar boroughs. The Director for Sustainable Communities acknowledged that the KPIs in the current contract had been set at a level that was too ambitious when compared to neighbours. Members heard that benchmarking with other authorities would take place to inform the setting of KPIs for the new contract, as well as incorporating industry standards; realistic targets would be set, with ambitious stretch targets to incentivise good performance.

The Vice-Chair asked what outcomes were being sought as a part of the new contract, and whether these would be realistic given potential costs. The Director of Sustainable Communities explained that the report to the November 2022 Sub-Committee had included a breakdown of the indicative costs of the Options Appraisal, but that these would be sense checked for the final report to Cabinet; possible growth in this area had been highlighted in the Medium Term Financial Strategy. Members heard that there was a  ...  view the full minutes text for item 12/23

For the Sub-Committee to scrutinise the Cabinet report covering the draft Planning Transformation Programme structure, including the programme’s six workstreams, future governance and next steps. To receive a presentation on the above, the findings of the PAS review and the Council’s responses to its recommendations, to allow the Sub-Committee to feed into, and influence, the Transformation Programme.

The Sub-Committee considered a report set out on pages 29 to 120 of the agenda, which provided the Cabinet report on Local Planning Authority Service Transformation. The Corporate Director of Sustainable Communities, Regeneration and Economic Recovery (SCRER) introduced the item and went through the presentation, appended to these minutes, on the report that covered the findings of the Planning Advisory Service (PAS) review (Appendix 1 of the Cabinet report) and the Council’s response to its recommendations.

The Chair asked how the workstreams would be managed and prioritised. The Corporate Director of SCRER explained this was still in its very early stages, but that there would be a project plan for each workstream. Members heard that the appointment of the Planning Improvement Manager was key and would following building capacity for transformation into the service. Once the Planning Improvement Manager was in post, the workstreams, project plans and programme would be established; as part of this, how to monitor and report on progress would be considered. The Chair asked if every recommendation from the PAS review would be addressed, and the Corporate Director of SCRER explained that the review was a snapshot of the service and that the recommendations would need to be prioritised, with most of them directly addressed.

The Vice-Chair queried the Planning Department’s current strategy and asked how resources would be prioritised over the coming months. The Chair enquired how the tensions between the budget, delivery of services and transformation would be managed. The Corporate Director of SCRER responded that there had been reductions in the number of staff and shortfalls in income generated by planning applications, which had made it difficult to resource the service and address capacity issues. There had been a budget correction of £1 million in recognition that income targets had been less than what had been achieved. Members heard that there was a continuing risk of reduced income from a downturn in planning applications.

Members asked what checks and balances were being put in place to ensure the department remained resilient. The Corporate Director of SCRER highlighted the importance of correctly resourcing the department, and noted the particular pressures that had been felt during the pandemic. Members heard that improvements to efficiencies, processes and IT were important to make workloads more manageable for staff. The Cabinet Member for Planning & Regeneration explained that the PAS review, Mayor’s Business Plan and National Policy changes would all be used to inform transformation plans. The Cabinet Member highlighted the strong governance structures in place for the programme and importance of workforce development in ensuring it was a success.

The Vice-Chair asked how different the service was now in comparison to when the PAS review was conducted, and the Cabinet Member for Planning and Regeneration explained that the department was on an improvement journey, and was making good progress. The Corporate Director of SCRER explained that recruitment to planning roles was a national challenge, particularly in London, and that work to clear the backlog of planning applications was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 13/23

The Sub-Committee is asked to scrutinise the information provided with a view to considering whether it is reassured about the delivery of the 2022-23 Sustainable Communities, Regeneration & Economic Recovery Budget.

The Sub-Committee considered a report set out on pages 121 to 164 of the agenda that provided the Cabinet Report on Period 8 Financial Performance for Members to ascertain whether they are reassured about the delivery of the 2022-23 Sustainable Communities, Regeneration & Economic Recovery Budget.

The Chair asked about risks and opportunities outlined in the report for the SCRER department. The Corporate Director of SCRER explained that some of the risks were around Capital recharges; income at risk from difficulty recruiting civil enforcement officers; parking income; and additional energy costs. Members heard that agency staff were being used to fill civil enforcement officer roles, and there were efforts to convert agency staff to permanent employment after a period of time. Opportunities for SCRER were around using CIL to support revenue expenditure; highways savings; parking income; and recharges to the Housing Revenue Account. The Chair asked where CIL would be used to support revenue expenditure and Members were informed that this used to address, in part, where development in the borough was increasing demand on services.

On Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) Cameras, the Corporate Director of SCRER explained that School Streets and Healthy Neighbourhoods cameras continued to be rolled out, but it was acknowledged that there had been delays due to operational and functional issues. The Sub-Committee heard that work was ongoing with contractors to ensure this is progressed.

The Streets, Environment & Homes Sub-Committee is asked to: -

1.     Note the most recent version of its Work Programme, as presented in the report.

2.     Consider whether there are any other items that should be provisionally added to the work programme as a result of the discussions held during the meeting.

The Sub-Committee noted the report.