Agenda and draft minutes

To approve the minutes of the meeting held on 22 July 2024 as an accurate record.

The minutes of the meeting held on 22 July 2024 were agreed as an accurate record.

Members and co-opted Members of the Council are reminded that, in accordance with the Members’ Code of Conduct and the statutory provisions of the Localism Act 2011, they are required to consider in advance of each meeting whether they have a disclosable pecuniary interest (DPI), some 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 must urgently 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 in general to disclose any relevant DPIs, ORIs or NRIs 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 room unless granted a dispensation.

-       Where the matter directly relates to the financial interest or wellbeing of 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 or affects their or a relevant person’s financial interest or wellbeing, whether they can participate in any discussion or vote on the matter or stay in the room depends on the detailed rules in paragraphs 7 to 9 of Appendix B of the Members’ Code of Conduct.

The Chair will invite Members to make their disclosure of interests orally at the meeting and they will also be recorded in the minutes.

Councillor Alasdair Stewart declared, in relation to the item ‘Climate Action Plan’, that he owned a car that could be charged at an electric vehicle charging point (EVCP).

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.

To receive an update on work towards achieving the Mayor’s priority for delivering ‘Cleaner Croydon’, and to monitor whether the blitz clean programme has been successful in having a sustained impact on district centres.

The Sub-Committee received the presentation set out in the supplementary agenda, which provided an update on work towards achieving the Mayor’s priority for delivering ‘Cleaner Croydon’ and the ‘Blitz Clean’ programme. The Cabinet Member for Streets & Environment introduced the item followed by the Head of Environment Services & Sustainable Neighbourhoods who went through the presentation at Appendix A.

Members asked how areas had been prioritised for ‘Blitz Cleans’ and heard that Norbury had been selected based on data such as the number of ‘streets below grade’ and fly tipping volume. The Head of Environment Services & Sustainable Neighbourhoods explained that, going forwards, the programme would look at the needs of local communities, data from the service provider and input from the contract monitoring officers; the final approach would be chosen in consultation with the Executive Mayor and Cabinet Member for Streets & Environment. The Sub-Committee were informed that the next ‘Blitz Clean’ would be launched soon in New Addington.

The Vice-Chair asked about Ward Councillor engagement in advance of the ‘Blitz Cleans’ and heard that Ward Councillors would be included in initial site visits, alongside community and ‘Friends’ groups, to collate all the issues that needed tackling and to feed into the ‘Blitz Clean’ plan. The Cabinet Member for Streets & Environment explained that engagement with ‘Friends’ groups, ahead of the Thornton Heath ‘Blitz Clean’, had helped to identify a potential issue with licensing on the High Street; Ward Councillors had also been engaged with on site visits in advance of the clean and the Sub-Committee heard that the ‘Blitz Cleans’ would be bespoke to each area based on feedback from these local groups and individuals.

The Sub-Committee asked if there had been long-term impact from the Norbury ‘Blitz Clean’ and whether the ‘Blitz Cleans’ were taking resources away from day-to-day services. The Head of Environment Services & Sustainable Neighbourhoods explained that the ‘Blitz Clean’ in Norbury had focussed on graffiti and fly-posting removal; where businesses were open and thriving the impact had been sustained as these businesses had taken on the responsibility of keeping up standards in the area, but fly-posting and graffiti had returned where there were still vacant properties. Members heard that the number of street cleansing requests had remained static in Norbury following the ‘Blitz Clean’ and that fly tipping seemed to be reducing; additional resources were being directed to the fly-tipping service to ensure that there was proactive and regular clearing of hotspots. The Head of Environment Services & Sustainable Neighbourhoods explained that working with local businesses was the most sustainable way of ensuring that the ‘Blitz Cleans’ had a sustained impact and that the Council had developed a pledge around maintaining street standards that businesses could sign up to. The Director of Streets & Environment stated that the ‘Blitz Clean’ programme would not negatively impact regular street cleansing.

Members asked why only two ‘Blitz Cleans’ had been completed so far given that the programme had been running for over a year. The Head of Environment Services & Sustainable Neighbourhoods explained that the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 29/24

This item will provide the Sub-Committee with an update on the Council’s development of its Climate Action Plan.

The Sub-Committee received the presentation, set out on pages 23 to 42 the agenda, which provided an update on Council’s development of a Climate Action Plan. The Cabinet Member for Streets & Environment introduced the item, followed by the Head of Independent Travel.

Members raised concerns about how long the Climate Action Plan had taken to bring to the Sub-Committee, the high-level nature of the presentation, and the omission of biodiversity and the Flood Risk Management Plan from the slides. The Sub-Committee asked how all of the Council’s strategies that touched upon Climate Action and carbon reduction would be co-ordinated in a deliverable way, and what actions the Council would be taking whilst the Climate Action Plan was being finalised. The Corporate Director of Sustainable Communities, Regeneration and Economic Recovery (SCRER) explained that the Council was undertaking a truly cross-Council review and that the governance around the delivery of the Climate Action Plan would take place through a programme board to ensure that proper monitoring and evaluation was taking place. Members heard that work on delivering strategies, such as the Air Quality Action Plan and Flood Risk Management Plan, was already taking place, but it was accepted that the Council would need to continue to improve its joined up working across strategies into a coherent single programme that could be reported upon. The Corporate Director of SCRER acknowledged the importance of biodiversity and how this intersected with updated planning legislation on ‘biodiversity net gain’, but explained that there needed to be financial resource in place to develop a bespoke biodiversity strategy. The Head of Environment Services & Sustainable Neighbourhoods stated that a Wildflower Strategy was still being developed, with this planned to be completed by the end of 2024, and that this would feed into both the Air Quality Action Plan and Climate Action Plan.

In response to comments from Members on the report, the Corporate Director of SCRER explained that the report had been intended to ensure the Sub-Committee were kept up to date, but it was acknowledged that officers were not yet ready to fully report on the Council’s review of its Climate Action Plan. The Corporate Director of SCRER stated that officers were keen to inform the Sub-Committee of the current position and progress to date.

The Sub-Committee asked what metrics would be used to assess the Climate Action Plan’s impact on air quality and community health. The Corporate Director of SCRER explained that ‘Carbon Dioxide (CO2) emissions estimates within the scope of influence of Local Authorities (Emissions per km2 (kt CO2))’ was a Key Performance Indicator (KPI) in the Mayor’s Business Plan. Members previously the most recent data for this KPI had been from 2021, but that this would now be updated as part of the Climate Action Plan’s development to ensure that there could better impact monitoring.

Members asked how residents and members of the community would be engaged with and involved in delivering the Climate Action Plan.  The Head of Independent Travel agreed that this  ...  view the full minutes text for item 30/24

Following the award of the Waste Contract at Cabinet on the 25^th September 2024, this item will provide the Sub-Committee an opportunity to scrutinise the Waste Procurement Contract Management, Mobilisation, Monitoring & Key Performance Indicators (KPIs).

The Sub-Committee considered the Cabinet report, on pages 43 to 76 of the agenda (Procurement Waste and Street Cleansing Service – Award Report), which set out the approach to reshaping the future waste collection and street cleansing service in line with financial affordability of the service as agreed in the Medium-Term Financial Strategy (MTFS). The report concluded that, following a comprehensive procurement exercise, the best value option to improve waste collection, recycling and street cleansing within an agreed financial parameter was to award a new contract to the preferred Bidder A named in the Part B report. The report also noted the required changes in the Councils approach to contract management, currently undertaken by the South London Waste Partnership (SLWP), with the aim of implementing an enhanced client contract management team focused on holding the contractor to account in the delivery of services. The report had been considered at the Cabinet meeting on the 25 September 2024. The Sub-Committee had asked to look at the report with a view to scrutinising the Waste Procurement Contract Management, Mobilisation, Monitoring & Key Performance Indicators (KPIs). The Cabinet Member for Streets & Environment introduced the item, followed by the Director of Streets & Environment and the Head of Environment Services & Sustainable Neighbourhoods.

Members asked how the resident experience would be improved with the new contract. The Head of Environment Services & Sustainable Neighbourhoods explained that resident feedback had fed into the contract specification, including on flats above shops, communal collections and collection frequency. Members heard that better holding of the contractor to account would improve the experience of services for residents and that this would be underpinned by the dedicated contract management and client monitoring functions which would validate data and conduct regular ward visits and inspections. The Sub-Committee asked if the Council had considered an amended memorandum of understanding with the South London Waste Partnership (SLWP) to avoid a new procurement exercise and heard that it had been, but that a procurement exercise for just Croydon had been the preference due to the borough’s bespoke needs and the high risk of legal challenge from extending and varying the existing contract.

The Sub-Committee asked about the total cost and length of the procurement exercise and heard that this had been a cross-Council procurement exercise to minimise costs and that the total costs were expected to be around £300,000 from a budget of £500,000; these costs would include the mobilisation phase.

The Chair asked about tangible benefits that residents might see as a result of the new contract, for example through dynamic scheduling. The Head of Environment Services & Sustainable Neighbourhoods explained that the current service was reactive and required reporting of service failures or streets below grade, with no published schedule of street cleansing; the new contractor would be required to review all highways and to implement a frequency based street cleansing service to ensure streets were kept to standard. The new contract also allowed for additional street cleansing where there were requests as a result of fly-tips  ...  view the full minutes text for item 31/24

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 2024-25 Sustainable Communities, Regeneration & Economic Recovery Budget.

The Sub-Committee considered a report set out on pages 77 to 122 of the agenda that provided the Cabinet Report on Period 3 Financial Performance for Members to ascertain whether they are reassured about the delivery of the 2024-25 Sustainable Communities, Regeneration & Economic Recovery (SCRER) Budget. The Corporate Director of SCRER introduced the item.

The Chair asked the Corporate Director of SCRER which areas most concerned them and heard that Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (SEND) Transport demand growth in Croydon, and nationally, formed the largest overspend at Period 3 for SCRER. Members heard that this was the key risk identified for SCRER in this paper.

The Chair asked about the impact of the current overspent position on community services and what mitigations were being put in place. The Corporate Director of SCRER explained that the department were always striving to bring the budget back into balance. The Sub-Committee heard that this was being addressed in a number of ways, including: considering delaying recruitment to vacant posts, investigating areas of additional income, reviewing agency staff spend, investigating substituting grant money for General Fund spend and identifying savings opportunities. The Corporate Director of SCRER stated that an improvement in the budget position was already apparent from a combination of these actions, but that the continued growth in demand for SEND Transport remained a challenge.

The Vice-Chair asked if there would be any changes or adjustments to community facing services as a result of the overspend, and heard that currently this was not the case. 

The Sub-Committee noted that SEND Transport budget growth had been considered at the January 2024 meeting of the Sub-Committee, including possible mitigations and efficiencies. The Corporate Director of SCRER explained that there was a SEND Transport Transformation Programme Board which was continuing to look at the mitigations previously discussed, and that work with an external partner had taken place to review these budgets, but that increased demand meant that successful interventions would be unable to mitigate demand growth; personal travel training, travel budgets and muster points were all options the Council was currently exploring. Members heard that procurement processes were also being reviewed to see where else there could be efficiencies in the SEND Transport service. The Corporate Director of SCRER stated that exponential growth in demand had outstripped the budget growth in the current year’s budget, and that budget setting for 2025/26 would use modelling to try to predict the budget growth needed. Enhancing in-borough provision and how places were allocated were also being considered to try to reduce pressure on the service.

The Vice-Chair asked what specific measures had been taken to avoid overspending in critical service areas before the end of the financial year. The Corporate Director of SCRER explained that there was a robust monthly budget and projection monitoring process involving both Senior and Director management teams. Members heard that there were also monthly assurance meetings which considered risks and mitigations. The Corporate Director of SCRER stated that the information gathered and trends  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32/24

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 the report.

The Streets & Environment 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.

The following motion is to be moved and seconded where it is proposed to exclude the press and public from the remainder of a meeting:

“That, under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act, 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information falling within those paragraphs indicated in Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended.”

The following motion was moved by Councillor Gayle Gander and seconded by Councillor Mohammed Islam to exclude the press and public:

“That, under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act, 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following items of business on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information falling within those paragraphs indicated in Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, as amended.”

The motion was put and it was agreed by the Committee to exclude the press and public for the remainder of the meeting.

Please note that a full confidential minute has also been produced.

The Committee considered the confidential report set out on pages 139 to 232 of the agenda supplement which provided further information on the Council’s approach to reshaping the future waste collection and street cleansing service in line with financial affordability of the service as agreed in the Medium-Term Financial Strategy (MTFS). During its consideration of this information, the Sub-Committee asked questions on the following areas: -

-        Targets in the new contract

-        The Contract term

-        Contract extensions

-        Social Value offer

-        Contract risks

-        Indexation