Agenda and minutes

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 20^th July 2022 as an accurate record.

The minutes of the meeting held on 20^th July 2022 were agreed as an accurate record.

Apologies for absence were received from Councillor Luke Shortland, who sent Councillor Nikhil Sherine Thampi as a substitute.

Apologies for lateness were received from Councillors Agboola and Benson.

Members and co-opted Members of the Council are reminded that, in accordance with the Council’s Code of Conduct and the statutory provisions of the Localism Act, they are required to consider in advance of each meeting whether they have a disclosable pecuniary interest (DPI), an other registrable interest (ORI) or a non-registrable interest (NRI) in relation to any matter on the agenda.  If advice is needed, Members should contact the Monitoring Officer in good time before the meeting.  

If any Member or co-opted Member of the Council identifies a DPI or ORI which they have not already registered on the Council’s register of interests or which requires updating, they should complete the disclosure form which can be obtained from Democratic Services at any time, copies of which will be available at the meeting for return to the Monitoring Officer.

Members and co-opted Members are required to disclose any DPIs and ORIs at the meeting: -

·     Where the matter relates to a DPI they may not participate in any discussion or vote on the matter and must not stay in the meeting unless granted a dispensation.  

·     Where the matter relates to an ORI they may not vote on the matter unless granted a dispensation.   

·     Where a Member or co-opted Member has an NRI which directly relates to their financial interest or wellbeing, or that of a relative or close associate, they must disclose the interest at the meeting, may not take part in any discussion or vote on the matter and must not stay in the meeting unless granted a dispensation.  Where a matter affects the NRI of a Member or co-opted Member, section 9 of Appendix B of the Code of Conduct sets out the test which must be applied by the Member to decide whether disclosure is required.

The Chair will invite Members to make their disclosure orally at the commencement of Agenda item 3, to be recorded in the minutes.

Councillor Foster highlighted that they had already registered an interest as an employee of the charity ‘Living Streets’ which promoted projects to encourage walking.

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.

The Chair explained that the Sub-Committee would be asking questions on the Financial Performance Report - Month 4 (July 2022) that had been reported to Cabinet on 21st September 2022 as separate financial reporting on the Sustainable Communities, Regeneration and Economic Recovery (SCRER) and Housing directorates had not been provided. Discussions with the Chair of Scrutiny & Overview and the relevant Corporate Directors would be held to agree a way forward on financial reporting to the Sub-Committee in future.

The Chair asked about the possible projected overspend of up to £19 million, noting that a large part of this referred to the SCRER department, and asked for this to be explained. The Corporate Director for SCRER explained that at month four, the department was projecting an overspend of £15.14 million; this related to under recovered income and largely to the various income streams that made up traffic moving and parking income. These included parking, civil enforcement, parking suspensions, controlled parking zones and new/planned Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) schemes.

There had been downturns in income due to changes in behaviours as a result of the economy, post-COVID society and reduced enforcement. It was noted that reduced enforcement was due to both a decline in offences and difficulties in recruiting to civil enforcement officer posts. There had also been delays for the implementation of Healthy Neighbourhoods and School Streets schemes.

The remaining areas of the budget related to under recovery of income in building control and development management, due to a downturn in activity. There were less planning applications and pre-application advice sought which had also effected the budget.

The Chair raised budget pressures from the provision of Special Education Needs (SEN) Transport and was informed that this had seen increased demand, and that there were additional pressures from contract inflation. Negotiations with providers were ongoing and a reserve was built into the budget to address contract inflation, and this may be used in future to cover some of this pressure.

The Corporate Director addressed the Private Sector Landlord Licensing Scheme and explained that this had been budgeted to achieve significant income but had been rejected by the Secretary of State due to the lack of a Housing Policy, but that work to address this was ongoing. The Sub-Committee noted these schemes were meant to be cost-neutral and asked why this had led to budget pressure. Members heard that the resources for Private Sector Housing had been scaled back.

The Sub-Committee asked about the income of the Planning Department and the Corporate Director of SCRER responded that the department’s budget was made up entirely of income and so an under recovery of income was the result of reduced numbers of planning applications. The Director of Planning & Sustainable Regeneration explained that there were different levels of fee income depending on the size of applications; householder applications had increased, and major applications had fallen leading to reduced income for the department. Pre-application and Planning Performance Agreements were discretionary fee generating services provided by the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4/22

To receive an update on the development of the Housing Needs Transformation Plan and to examine how this is going to be delivered against the pressures of delivering in-year savings. The Housing Needs Service is undergoing a transformation as part of a longer-term plan for full transformation for the whole Department. This transformation will look at Homelessness Services and Temporary Accommodation. 

The Sub-Committee considered a report set out on pages 21 to 26 of the agenda which provided an update on the development of the Housing Needs Transformation Plan. The Chair noted that Members had been disappointed in the lack of detail in the report which had made it difficult to analyse.

The Sub-Committee asked about the suggestion in the report that the service was not currently ‘customer centric’ and heard that the number of entry points to the service led to an inconsistent quality of advice and service for vulnerable people and that this needed to be addressed to ensure they were treated with kindness, respect and dignity.

The Chair asked for information on how many homeless residents were registered in Croydon and how many had been housed in and out of borough. The Head of Temporary Accommodation explained that on homelessness and emergency accommodation there were just over 3000 households but there needed to be data cleansing to verify these figures. This was a combination of households who had formally made a homelessness declaration, who formed the majority, and the minority had a ‘discretionary arrangement’; around 80% were housed in borough and around 20% out of borough. Returns sent to the Government needed to be thorough and affected funding settlements that the Council received. The discretionary placements were largely care leavers who the Council had a duty to support, and the rest had not been supported to leave the Temporary Accommodation system.

On Temporary and Emergency Accommodation placements into Croydon, the majority of these were from Wandsworth, Sutton, Merton and Lambeth. The Council could not stop other authorities placing into the borough as long as they notified Croydon when this occurred.

The Sub-Committee asked about a court case the Council was appealing, referenced within the paper, and asked if it would have been cheaper not to appeal it. The Head of Homelessness & Assessments explained that the Council had lost a High Court case which determined that anyone in unsuitable accommodation must jump the housing queue and be provided a permanent home within weeks; the decision also implied that the financial situation of a council would no longer be considered. Local Authorities across the country were very concerned about the implications of this case as it could lead to significant issues and it was regarded as a test mark case nationally.

Members asked if the Council could only pay landlords a statutory rate and the Head of Temporary Accommodation explained that pan-London rates were agreed to try and manage the market with rates negotiated at the same level. These rates stopped markets becoming over inflated when authorities placed residents out of borough.

The Chair asked why the report did not provide any financial information on the stated workstreams. The Head of Temporary Accommodation explained that the starting position was to achieve savings of £1.8 million in the next financial year; some plans had been developed and some were still at early stages. It was noted that homelessness demand was likely  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5/22

This report provides an update on the Healthy Streets / Active Travel Programme including (Healthy Neighbourhoods, School Streets, Vision Zero, Cycling and Walking Strategy).

The Sub-Committee considered a report set out on pages 27 to 34 of the agenda, and in supplements, which provided an update on the Healthy Streets / Active Travel Programme including (Healthy Neighbourhoods, School Streets, Vision Zero, Cycling and Walking Strategy). The Chair explained the background of this item and stated that a briefing on the implementation and monitoring framework of Healthy Neighbourhood schemes had been held before the meeting, with notes of this meeting published as a supplement. The Head of Strategic transport introduced the item with a short presentation.

The Sub-Committee asked how when Transport for London (TfL) assessed the performance of different boroughs on Active Travel and Healthy Streets, that the intensity of public transport and the prevalence of hills was taken into account. The Head of Strategic Transport responded that this was taken into account at the objective setting stage and TfL was beginning to recognise the difference between public transport availability in Inner and Outer London. Public transport availability in Croydon was not on a par with Central London, but usage was high compared to other Outer London boroughs. Croydon had been identified as having a high potential for journeys made by bicycle, however, the was not currently being realised. The Croydon Cycling Strategy addressed topography, about which there was little the Council could do, and the Head of Strategic Transport suggested this could be addressed through the promotion of e-bikes. The Chair asked about possible funding streams to bring e-bikes into the borough and heard that this was difficult currently but that it was possible this could be achieved through Section 106 funding and the introduction of hire schemes. It was highlighted that e-bikes would require the same level of infrastructure as normal bikes.

The Chair asked the Cabinet Member for Streets and Environment about the manifesto commitment of the Mayor to review Healthy Neighbourhood schemes and the appearance that this had not undertaken. The Cabinet Members for Streets and Environment responded that a review of the original Traffic Management Advisory Committee decision had been undertaken and these were being implemented due to financial implications for the budget but with amended signage and road markings. The Sub-Committee asked whether this was contrary to the Mayor’s manifesto and heard that the Council was going above and beyond in it’s engagement with residents to ensure schemes were sensitive. The Head of Strategic Transport explained the process that needed to be followed at the end of the Experimental Traffic Management Orders (ETMOs) and explained that this would be running alongside extensive engagement including independent polling, receipt of objections, street audits and drop-in sessions. A comprehensive review of Healthy Neighbourhood schemes would be presented to Cabinet after 12 months with suggested next steps at the end of the ETMOs.

The Chair explained that the engagement approach did not necessarily mean that schemes would be removed as the default position in national policy was that unless significant harm from schemes could be proven then they would be retained.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6/22

The Streets, Environment & Homes Sub-Committee is presented with an up to date list of responses from Cabinet to recommendations made by the Sub-Committee for review.

The Sub-Committee noted the paper.

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 Chair encouraged Members to submit any additional work programme items to the Clerk in light of a number of items moving to the new temporary Homes Scrutiny Sub-Committee.

The Sub-Committee agreed to bring the next meeting forward to the 8^th November 2022 from the 15^th November 2022 in order to allow time for recommendations made on papers to reach the Cabinet meeting on 16^th November 2022.