Agenda and minutes

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 2 April 2024 as an accurate record.

The Corporate Director for Sustainable Communities, Regenerations & Economic Recovery (SCRER) clarified under item ‘13/24 - Cabinet Report: Proposed Parking Charge Amendments 2024-25’ that there was no reference to Workplace Parking Levies in the Council’s Parking Policy, nor was there any reference in the paper considered by the Sub-Committee. Members heard that the Council’s work programme on parking only related to the agreed Parking Policy and, as a result, consideration of Workplace Parking Levies was not on the work programme.

The minutes of the meeting held on 2 April 2024 were agreed as an accurate record.

The Sub-Committee asked for an updated on the fixed air quality monitoring station on Wellesley Road and heard that the issue with the unit was as a result of difficulties in finding an appropriate electricity supply or connection. Members were informed that a solution had been found, with meetings to progress this starting in August 2024.

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 conduct pre-decision scrutiny on the July Cabinet report concerning the strategic direction for the provision of bus shelters, for which Croydon Council has responsibility in the borough.

The Sub-Committee considered a report set out on pages 19 to 52 of the agenda, which provided the report on the Bus Shelter Delivery Programme, due to be considered at Cabinet on the 24 July 2024. The Cabinet Member for Streets & Environment introduced the item followed by a short presentation (Appendix 2 in the agenda pack) from the Acting Head of Commercial Management.

The Sub-Committee asked what market testing had taken place to rule out options two, three and four, and whether the Council had looked at Transport for London’s (TfL) model and suppliers to see if this would have been viable for Croydon to deliver independently. The Acting Head of Commercial Management responded that soft market testing had taken place through a questionnaire on the Council’s procurement portal; a number of responses had been received and analysed to ascertain the cost of self-delivery. The Council had also looked at the cost of self-delivery through TfL’s current supplier.

The Vice-Chair asked for a detailed timeline of the meetings between Valo Smart City UK Ltd and the Council between 2021 and 2023. The Corporate Director of SCRER explained that a significant number of meetings had taken place with Valo Smart City UK Ltd, and also with the Council’s legal team, to try to ensure that the contract could be delivered. These meetings had resulted in a variation to the contract being agreed through a delegated decision process to try to ensure that a revised programme could be delivered. Members heard that the Council had conducted due diligence on Valo Smart City UK Ltd, but that despite this, none of the promises and commitments made were realised; following this it was recognised that the contract needed to be terminated. The Sub-Committee heard that it was important that the Council went through the correct process to terminate the contract to ensure that it was not legally exposed. It was acknowledged that it had taken some time to terminate the contract, but it was highlighted again that this was necessary to protect the Council from legal exposure.

The Chair asked why it had taken four years to remediate the situation in Croydon with bus shelters and what lessons had been learned from the contract with Valo Smart City UK Ltd. The Corporate Director of SCRER explained that the initial 12 month contract negotiation with Valo Smart City UK Ltd had taken too long and that the contractor had taken a long time to apply for and progress advertising consents. The Sub-Committee heard that Valo Smart City UK Ltd had been a new entrant into the bus shelter and advertising market and had never delivered public infrastructure or other projects in the UK; as a result of this, the company was unfamiliar with the UK planning or advertising consent systems and regulatory processes. The Corporate Director of SCRER explained that it had taken some time to persuade Valo Smart City UK Ltd that they needed some support from consultants on this and that the company  ...  view the full minutes text for item 20/24

For the Sub-Committee to receive a short presentation to update on grass cutting in the borough.

The Sub-Committee received the presentation set out in the supplementary agenda, which provided an update on grass cutting and Grounds Maintenance in the borough. The Head of Environment Services & Sustainable Neighbourhoods introduced the item. The Executive Mayor acknowledged that the service over the last two years had not been good enough and cited previous cuts to the service and a lack of sustained investment. The Sub-Committee heard that Grounds Maintenance was important to residents and Councillors due to its impact on the look and feel of the borough. The Executive Mayor stated that restoring the service to the appropriate level was a high priority but the hard work of the existing teams was acknowledged. The Sub-Committee heard that there was a clear need for improved management systems and that continued work with contractors needed to be considered, alongside better mapping and training. The Executive Mayor stated that it was important to him to get the service right using the limited resources available to the Council.

The Vice-Chair noted the reduction in Ground Maintenance operatives from 88 to 29 since 2018 and asked how a workforce of this size could cut all grass in the borough on a four-to-six-week schedule. The Corporate Director of SCRER explained that the staffing reduction had been driven by previous budget savings for the directorate and service. It was acknowledged that additional resource was needed, and that this would likely need to be a mix between Council staff and contractor resource to provide the necessary flexibility in the service. The Corporate Director of SCRER acknowledged that the current resource could not meet a four-to-six-week cutting schedule, due to the scale and diversity of grass cutting required in the borough; Members heard that record rainfall meant that resource in this year had been under additional stress.

The Chair asked about the mix of Council and contractor staff required to properly resource the service. The Head of Environment Services & Sustainable Neighbourhoods responded that they had reviewed the previous contractors operational model to determine how a four-to-six-week schedule cutting schedule for the borough had been met; this had consisted of roaming crews totalling 38 staff just to deal with highway verges, a dedicated resource for housing, as well as static crews in parks and cemeteries. Members heard that a review process would need to look at the overall resource required as well as how it was deployed to different land types. The Head of Environment Services & Sustainable Neighbourhoods explained that work would need to be done with customers, such as Parks and Housing, to develop Service Level Agreements (SLAs) to set out what was required and set expectation levels accordingly. Members heard that gaining a full understanding of this would allow the service to better plan for how much contractor resource it would need, and when it would need it throughout the year. The Executive Mayor highlighted that a longer cutting season, the use of contractors and better equipment were all measures being taken forward to improve the service.  ...  view the full minutes text for item 21/24

For the Sub-Committee to receive a presentation giving an update on Grant Funded Regeneration Programmes, including the UK Shared Prosperity Fund, Levelling Up Fund and Good Growth programmes.

The Sub-Committee received the presentation set out in the supplementary agenda, which provided an update on Grant Funded Regeneration Programmes, including the UK Shared Prosperity Fund (UKSPF), Levelling Up Fund, Historic England and Greater London Authority (GLA) Good Growth Fund. The Director of Planning & Sustainable Regeneration introduced the item followed by the Head of Spatial Planning, Growth Zone and Regeneration.

The Sub-Committee asked how Levelling Up Fund programmes integrated with wider work on Town Centre regeneration and whether bid submitted could be changed following business and community feedback. The Director of Planning & Sustainable Regeneration responded that there was good scope for changing details to ensure projects were deliverable; it was acknowledged that it was necessary for plans to evolve as projects become more detailed. Members heard that where there were changes there was engagement with key stakeholders and partners and that a communications plan around this was currently in the works. It was explained that simple changes could be enacted easily, but more major changes would need to go through a formal change control process with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG). The Corporate Director of SCRER explained that there was constant engagement with partners delivering regeneration in the borough through various platforms, including the Mayor’s Town Centre Advisory Board. The Sub-Committee heard that a wider vision, spatial strategy and regeneration plan for the Town Centre was being developed to bring the different plans together and look at the Town Centre as a whole.

The Sub-Committee asked whether the Croydon Urban Room was focused on Town Centre regeneration or if it featured information on wider regeneration happening in the borough. Members further asked if the presentation received by the Sub-Committee and the full Regeneration Strategy could be added to the Urban Room website. The Director of Planning & Sustainable Regeneration responded that the Urban Room had predominantly focussed on the Town Centre, and was funded through the Growth Zone, but currently had a display on the Local Plan Review which was borough wide. Members heard that the Urban Room was a good resource for engaging with all residents about the borough as a whole and provided borough context for Town Centre regeneration. The Head of Spatial Planning, Growth Zone and Regeneration explained that the easy-read Town Centre Regeneration Strategy on the Urban Room website had been provided to stimulate engagement for defining the Town Centre strategic vision; as the Council developed the Town Centre strategic vision in Autumn 2024 the website would be updated with additional documents, such as the Spatial Framework and Delivery Plan. It was confirmed that a link to the presentation could be added to the Urban Room website.

Members asked how long procurement to deliver Levelling Up Fund programmes would take, whether safety and anti-social behaviour had been considered as part of the Historic England and GLA Good Growth Funded South Norwood scheme, and whether the Council would be bidding for more GLA Good Growth projects. The Director of Planning & Sustainable Regeneration explained that  ...  view the full minutes text for item 22/24

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 53 to 92 of the agenda that provided the Cabinet Report on Period 9 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.

Members asked about increased costs in special educational needs and disabilities (SEND) Transport caused by an increase in the number of young people eligible for Education Health & Care Plans (EHCPs). The Corporate Director of SCRER responded that costs could sometimes be reduced by increasing specialist educational provision in-borough, however, this could be limited by those in mainstream schooling wanting to move to newer or improved provision. The Sub-Committee heard that out of borough provision was only one reason for an increased overspend and that there were local and national increases in the numbers of young people with EHCPs who are eligible for home to school transport. The Corporate Director of SCRER highlighted that personal travel budget and travel training schemes were ongoing, but that these were voluntary and therefore only har a limited impact upon managing the increase in demand for transport services. Members were informed that work to ascertain whether muster points were achievable was ongoing, but it was noted that some needs were so high that individuals needed to travel alone or with a personal assistants, which could limit how effective muster points might be. Members asked about staffing challenges and heard that there had been issues with vacancies for travel trainers in the previous year; there was turnover for other staffing areas (such as personal assistants and drivers) but that this was generally manageable.

The Vice-Chair asked what processes were in place to address departments experiencing budget pressures and the Corporate Director of SCRER explained that there was a monthly monitoring process that included assurance meetings at a directorate and corporate level. Where there were budget pressures, it was incumbent on budget holders to look for ways to reduce those service pressures or for other ways to mitigate the pressure through finding savings elsewhere.

Members asked what lessons had been taken forward to setting more realistic income targets in Planning and Parking Enforcement. The Corporate Director of SCRER explained that there had been an adjustment to parking targets at the beginning of 2023/24 and that these were now set to the correct level.

Members raised concerns about staffing underspends and heard that recruitment processes could take a long time which always created a vacancy factor across a large workforce. Recruitment had been taking place and it was noted that vacancies had been held where services had been ceased in the 2023/24 period and that these would no longer appear in 2024/24 monitoring reports.

Conclusions

The Sub-Committee concluded that it would like to continue monitoring SEND Transport as it received the Financial Monitoring Reports for 2024/25.

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

Members asked how residents could feed into the spending of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) in the borough and heard that individual projects did undergo community engagement and was often resident led, but that the Council did not have resources for wider engagement than it was currently undertaking. Members asked how CIL allocation could be made more transparent and the Corporate Director of SCRER responded that this was done through the annual publication of the Infrastructure Funding Statement.

The Sub-Committee noted report.

The Sub-Committee is asked to:

1.     Note the draft work programme for 2024-25, 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 and discussed:

• Including some information on fly-tipping enforcement under the Cleaner Croydon update item scheduled for October 2024.
• </AI10>A briefing on the Waste Procurement Contract Award ahead of the October 2024 meeting.
• A briefing on the Carbon Neutral Action Plan ahead of its consideration by the Sub-Committee.