Agenda and minutes

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 1 November 2023 as an accurate record.

The minutes of the meeting held on 1 November 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.

The Sub-Committee is provided the latest Financial Performance Monitoring report, to review by exception, with a view to considering whether it is reassured about the delivery of the 2023-24 Sustainable Communities, Regeneration & Economic Recovery Budget.

The Sub-Committee considered a report set out on pages 19 to 56 of the agenda that provided the Cabinet Report on Period 7 Financial Performance for Members to ascertain whether they are reassured about the delivery of the 2022-23 Sustainable Communities, Regeneration & Economic Recovery (SCRER) Budget. The Corporate Director of SCRER introduced the item.

The Chair asked if the forecasted breakeven for 23/24 was realistic, and the Corporate Director of SCRER responded that, at Period 7, it was. The Chair queried budget variances and a vacancy in the Culture team. It was explained that this vacancy sat outside the ‘Borough of Culture’, which was funded by grant funding, and would not affect its delivery. Members were informed that information on vacancies in the Culture team could be provided following the meeting.

Members queried risks in the Parking and Planning departments and the volatility in this income, and asked what the Council could do to generate income for these areas in a way that was less demand led. The Corporate Director of SCRER explained that these risks were inherent to income budgets for these departments, but that the Council needed to ensure it could set realistic targets and forecast figures; however, it was acknowledged that these income budgets were vulnerable to changes in the economy and demand.

The Sub-Committee asked about underspends due to reduced utility costs and heard that this had been as a result successful bids for government funding to subsidise General Fund spend on energy costs for swimming pools and leisure facilities.

Members asked whether the bid in progress for the ‘Planning Skills Delivery Fund’ had been decided and what this money would go towards if successful. The Director of Planning & Sustainable Regeneration explained that the Council had submitted a number of bids for Planning grants and that more information on these bids and their purposes could be provided outside of the meeting.

The Sub-Committee asked about the numbers of major planning applications and predicted underachievement of income at Period 7. The Corporate Director of SCRER explained that major planning applications generated a significant amount of planning income. The opportunity in this area (listed at 4.91 in the report) acknowledged that there were several major schemes in development that could generate large fees, but it was explained that the Council needed to be careful not to project these too soon, as the decision as to when these were submitted fell to the developer. Members heard that there had been a reduction in major applications in 23/24 due to a number of factors, including the increased cost of development and new regulatory requirements; there were still a good number of major applications in the borough compared with other boroughs. The Chair asked how officers could ensure there was not an overestimation of the number of major applications and associated income in future years. The Corporate Director of SCRER explained that predictions were based on the number of applications received in past years in combination with the knowledge of forthcoming  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4/24

The Sub-Committee is asked to review the information provided on three budget proposals (identified below) and reach a conclusion on the following:

1. Are the savings/growth deliverable, sustainable and not an unacceptable risk?

2. Is the impact on service users and the wider community understood? 

3. Have all reasonable alternative options been explored and do no better options exist?

Budget Proposal Focuses:

·       2024-28 SAV SCRER 002 - Fees and charges - Changes to parking policy

·       2024-28 GRO SCRER 003 - SEND Transport – Student Number Cost Driver

·       2024-28 SAV SCRER 006 - Deferral of growth in highways maintenance

The Sub-Committee considered a report set out on pages 59 to 68 of the agenda, which provided information on the following 2023/24 budget proposals:

·       2024-28 SAV SCRER 002 - Fees and charges - Changes to parking policy

·       2024-28 GRO SCRER 003 - SEND Transport – Growth Proposal

·       2024-28 SAV SCRER 006 - Deferral of growth in highways maintenance

The Sub-Committee went looked at these proposals with a view to determining:

·       Are the savings/growth deliverable, sustainable and not an unacceptable risk?

·       Is the impact on service users and the wider community understood?

·       Have all reasonable alternative options been explored and do no better options exist?

The Corporate Director of Sustainable Communities, Regeneration and Economic Recovery (SCRER) introduced the item and the Sub-Committee received presentations (Appendices A, B & C) on each budget proposal introduced by the Cabinet Member for Streets & Environment.

2024-28 SAV SCRER 002 - Fees and charges - Changes to parking policy

Members asked if parking trials had indicated whether the Council would be able to achieve additional parking income and what learning or insights there had been from the South Croydon parking trial. The Head of Highways & Parking Services explained that one of the aims of cashless parking trials had been to analyse kerbside transactions; previously residents had needed to get a paper ticket from a machine entitling them to a period of free parking. The trials had shown a drop in the total number of transactions, and it was thought this showed that there had been an element of meter feeding in district centres, although this could not yet be quantified. The Parking Policy Consultation had specifically asked about free parking in district centres and the potential change of this offer to charging a nominal fee. The results of the consultation were still being analysed to determine how a nominal fee could contribute to potential savings in future years, including 24/25.

The Sub-Committee asked whether there would be more engagement with local businesses with a view to introducing more PayPoints to ensure these were closer to parking locations. The Head of Highways & Parking Services explained that the Council would first need to reach out to PayPoint to understand how they engaged with local businesses; the contract currently sat with PayPoint and RingGo. It was acknowledged that there had only been one PayPoint available in the Purley trial, but that for the other trials there had three available. The Head of Highways & Parking Services stated that other payment methods were being investigated for those who did not have access to the RingGo app or phone line, potentially through parking vouchers as in some other boroughs.

Members enquired if officers had been aware of SMS charges to residents from RingGo reminder texts. The Head of Highways & Parking Services stated that they were aware of these charges, but that the system opted-out users out of this service by default, other than for users RingGo who had signed up to the service over seven years ago. Details, including screenshots, had been provided  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5/24

For the reasons set out in the report, the Streets and Environment Sub-Committee is recommended:

1.     To note this report in terms of the timings for projects set out in the Council’s Local Development Scheme; and,

2.     To note the content of this report regarding the Infrastructure Funding Statement 2022/23 and the Infrastructure Funding Statement itself.

The Sub-Committee considered a report set out on pages 69 to 86 of the agenda, which provided an update on the progress of projects set out in the Council approved Local Development Scheme (LDS) together with a summary of the 2022/23 Infrastructure Funding Statement (IFS). The Cabinet Member for Planning & Regeneration and Plan Making Team Leader introduced the item and went through a presentation (Appendix D).

Members asked if there had been an increase in the number of complaints about residential extensions since the revocation of the Croydon Suburban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2 (SPD2) in July 2022. The Head of Spatial Planning, Growth Zone and Regeneration explained that the Cabinet report concerning the revocation of SPD2 had made clear that a new Supplementary Planning Document would be produced to replace the Household Extensions and Alterations component; since the revocation of SPD2, the Local Plan had been used to make determinations on the basis of character and appearance. The Director of Planning & Sustainable Regeneration stated that there had been an increase in enforcement activity as a response to the Mayor’s priorities and this did not necessarily relate to the revocation of SPD2.

The Sub-Committee asked how Croydon’s Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) charging schedule compared to similar neighbouring boorughs. Head of Spatial Planning, Growth Zone and Regeneration explained that comparison with other boroughs could be unhelpful, as the rates were set by the development viability, development costs and market values in each individual borough. Croydon’s CIL charging schedule had been set at £120/m2 in 2013 and indexed annually.

Members asked what proportion of CIL was successfully collected and heard that CIL only became payable on the commencement of development. For this reason, it was extremely uncommon for CIL not be collected, as there was enforcement available through planning ‘Stop Notices’ or liability orders from Civil Courts. As CIL was not an unknown cost, it was factored into the viability of development by developers. The Sub-Committee asked if there had been a reduction in CIL collected over recent years and the Head of Spatial Planning, Growth Zone and Regeneration explained that this was the case, as CIL was linked to the market and developer activity.

The Chair asked about the timeline for the consultant’s review of the CIL charging schedule. The Plan Making Team Leader explained that the timeline had slipped due to a priority focus on the review of the Local Plan. Members heard that the consultant’s report had been completed and work on the CIL charging schedule would resume in the near future.

Members asked for more detail on the process of reviewing Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plans (CAAMP). The Plan Making Team Leader explained that there would be initial consultations with residents, followed by walkabouts, and drafting of the documents. Once the document was completed, there would be a further consultation and a statutory requirement for a public meeting. Responses from this consultation and public meeting would be analysed and then the CAAMPs were adopted as  ...  view the full minutes text for item 6/24

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 report.

The Sub-Committee is asked to:

1.               Note the draft work programme for 2023-24, as set out in Appendix 1 of the report.

2.               Consider whether there are any changes to the work programme that should be considered.

The Sub-Committee noted report.