Agenda item

a)    Public Questions (30 minutes)

To receive questions from the public gallery and questions submitted by residents in advance of the meeting.

 

b)    Leader and Cabinet Member Questions (105 minutes)

To receive questions from Councillors.

Public Questions

 

Madam Mayor explained that Croydon Question Time would commence with 30 minutes of public questions to the Leader and Cabinet Members. In accordance with advice from the Government and Public Health England, it was not possible to hold public meetings in the Town Hall. As a result, members of the public were unable to ask questions from the public gallery in the Council Chamber. Questions had been received by email up till 12 noon on Friday 27 November 2020. Twelve questions had been submitted. Madam Mayor advised that a number of questions related to the Low Traffic Network and unfortunately those could not be taken as the Council’s Constitution specifically prohibited questions pertaining to ongoing litigation. Those residents which had submitted questions relating to the Low Traffic Network had been written to and advised of the situation.

 

Madam Mayor read a question from Maria Nawrocka:

 

“The Croydon Renewal Plan paper to Council on 28 September estimated in-year staff savings of £2m. How many council staff have lost their livelihoods as a result of:

·         Voluntary redundancy; and

·         Compulsory redundancy.

 

What is the current in-year (2020-21) savings projection as a result of staff redundancies?

 

How many staff continue to be paid by the council through agency or consultancy contracts?

 

What is the in-year (2020-21) cost of agency and consultancy staff?”

 

In his response the Cabinet Member for Croydon Renewal, Councillor King, informed Council that 94 staff were leaving the council has a result of redundancy during 2020/21. 48 of those staff members were leaving under a voluntary arrangement and the remaining 46 were under a compulsory arrangement which would result in savings in the region of £1,386,000. Councillor King stated that figure excluded vacancy deletions and redeployment costs. In response to the final part of the question, Councillor King stated there were 267 staff employed on an agency contract basis and the in-year expenditure for those positions was in the region of £13,840,000.

 

Madam Mayor read a question from Kostandinos Dexiades to the meeting:

 

“When I emailed Councillor Ali to ask what is the Labour Council doing about stopping fly tipping in Croydon, I got email back from Councillor Ali to report fly tipping on My Account. I do this, but that's not the issue.  My question was what is Labour doing to stop fly tipping? Councillor Ali responded it is not Labour that is fly tipping – that is not the way to email Croydon voters. So, what is Labour doing to stop fly tipping in Croydon, so that taxpayers don't pay to clear up after fly-tippers?”

 

In his response the Cabinet Member for Sustainable Croydon, Councillor Muhammad Ali, stated fly tipping was a national crisis and was costing local government, as a whole, significant sums of money to tackle. It was noted that the former Cabinet Member for Clean Green Croydon had lobbied the Secretary of State for DEFRA. The response from DEFRA had not addressed how the issue would be tackled nationally.

 

Councillor Ali stated that since 2014 the Council had operated the ‘Don’t Mess with Croydon’ campaign and an app had been developed to enable residents to report a number of environmental issues, such as fly tipping. Furthermore, the Council employed Enforcement Officers who had issued around 800 and 1000 fixed penalty notices annually and the council had seized 53 vehicles which had been used to fly tip.

 

In conclusion, Councillor Ali explained, Croydon could not combat fly tipping alone and required the support of residents to continue to report those who fly tipped. Government intervention was also required. Councillor Ali requested that environmental issues were reported through the correct channels to support the council in monitoring the performance of the contractor.

 

Madam Mayor read a question from Mark Samuels to the meeting:

 

“Croydon will live within its means”, says replacement Leader of the Council. Councillor Hamida Ali, continues to declare publicly funded employment as, “workforce equality, diversity, and inclusion manager” at the Greater London Authority. Given our parlous state, surely any committed leader would instead, focus solely on the improvement of Croydon?”

 

In her response the Leader of the Council, Councillor Hamida Ali stressed that she had served in her role as Leader full time since she was appointed. From 16 October 2020 and 10 November 2020 she had been on a combination of annual leave and public duties leave. Since that date she had been on an unpaid sabbatical from her role at the Greater London Authority, which had enabled her to focus full time on being the Leader of the Council.

 

Madam Mayor read a question from Ola Kolade to the meeting:

 

“With an increase in complex cases relating to vulnerable young people in Croydon. How does this administration plan to support their wellbeing, given plans to make £6.4 million in cuts to this department?”

 

In her response the Cabinet Member for Children, Young People & Learning, Councillor Flemming, stated the council continued to work with its young people and had been able to support a number to enter apprenticeships. Work would continue with partner agencies to support young people and going forward conversations would continue with the upcoming university providers; Southbank University, Roehampton University and Croydon College to further support young people in the borough. In particular, the Cabinet Member highlighted targeted opportunities, such as short courses and longer courses to support young people to enter the workplace.

 

Furthermore, Councillor Flemming highlighted the work of CALAT (Croydon Adult Learning & Training) which undertook targeted work with 16 to 18 year olds to support them, whether academically if they had missed qualifications or to enter the workplace.

 

Madam Mayor read a question from Richard Mearns to the meeting:

 

“Croydon have a proven track record with wasting money and mismanagement of public funds. Can Cllr Ali or his predecessor

1.    Provide a clear explanation of the costs of the implementation of the Road Blocks across Croydon?

2.    How much does each planter cost?

3.    How much have the concrete road closure cost to put in?”

 

In his response the Cabinet Member for Sustainable Croydon, Councillor Muhammad Ali, stated he was confident that the cost of the measures was similar to the costs incurred by other local authorities in London which had implemented similar measures otherwise Transport for London (TfL) would not have approved proposal or funding.

 

It was explained that the average cost of the measures was just over £1,000 per unit and that TfL normally pays most of the funds which a local authority uses to invest in the public realm and transport of the borough. In 2020/21, with the pandemic, funding was put in place to implement TfL’s Street Space Programme and the Croydon Street Space Programme, which sought to create temporary low traffic streets and neighbourhoods.

 

Madam Mayor read a second question from Kostandinos Dexiades to the meeting:

 

“My question, why did the Labour Council allow this bankruptcy to happen after being warned this would happen?"

 

The Cabinet Member for Resources & Financial Governance, Councillor Young, noted that the Report in the Public Interest (RIPI) stated that there had been opportunities in recent years where the Council could and should have taken action to mitigate the financial pressures.

 

The Cabinet Member stated that the report did not suggest there had been deliberate action on the part of the council which had led to the 2020/21 in-year pressures exceeding the council’s reserves position. Rather, the Cabinet Member noted, the report cited missed opportunities, such as the auditor concerns which had been reported to officers and Members in July 2018 and the adverse Value for Money qualification reported in 2019. The conclusion of the report had been that there had been collective corporate blindness and opportunities to rectify the financial position and this, the Cabinet Member stated, was a matter of regret

 

The Cabinet Member noted that there were further reviews due to be completed and that those alongside the RIPI would enable the council to better understand how it had reached the position of issuing a Section 114 Notice.  The Cabinet Member concluded that the Croydon Renewal Plan, Financial Recovery Plan, the RIPI Action Plan, the submission to the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government (MHCLG) and the Independent Improvement Board would all support the council on the road to recovery.

 

Questions to the Leader

 

In his question the Leader of the Opposition, Councillor Perry, stated Croydon was due to face the most draconian cuts the borough had seen but queried the Leader’s remarks to residents that they were “not to worry”. Councillor Perry questioned why the Leader maintained this line when all residents would be affected, and in particular the most vulnerable.

 

The Leader noted that given the issuing of a Section 114 Notice it would be understandable for residents and community organisations to be concerned, especially with the term ‘bankrupt’ being used. However, the Leader felt it was important that the council reassured residents that, despite the difficult financial situation, the council would continue to be there to support residents.

 

The Leader confirmed that statutory services would continue and it was non-statutory and new expenditure which were the subject of the Section 114 Notice.  Services such as refuse collection, services to protect children and vulnerable adults which were statutory would continue to be delivered. The council was required, given the financial situation, to review services and find savings as the financial resilience of the authority needed to be addressed. The Leader concluded that it was important that the council continued to support residents even in the context of delivering necessary savings.

 

In his supplementary question, Councillor Perry stated he felt the Leader was giving residents false hope as services would be diminished to combat the financial position the council was in. He queried whether the Leader would show true leadership and expel and seek the resignation of Councillors Newman, Butler and Hall from the Labour Group as Councillor Perry stated residents, staff and partners were angry and wanted to see action.

 

In her response, the Leader responded by saying that she felt that it was really important to reassure residents, especially in light of some of the messages from Opposition group to the alternative. The council had a controllable budget of almost £300million which provided a range of services and the Leader stressed those services would continue to be delivered. The challenge, the Leader stressed was to live within the financial envelope available and it was recognised that all areas of the council would need to be reviewed to achieve that. Budget proposals had been agreed by Cabinet at the meeting the previous week and a consultation would take place with residents in order to hear their ideas also.

 

The Leader noted that the external auditor, Grant Thornton, at the Extraordinary Council Meeting on 19 November 2020 had recognised that there had been demonstrable change at the council in the proceeding weeks in response to the concerns they had raised. In terms of Councillor Perry’s supplementary question, the Leader reiterated that those councillors were no longer in their previous roles due to resignation or changes in the Cabinet.

 

Councillor Woodley queried what the likely impact to Croydon would be of being placed into tier two as a consequence of the covid-19 pandemic.

 

The Leader stressed that the national restrictions in place and that the ‘Stay at Home’ message was still in place.  Form 2 December 2020 the whole of London would be placed in tier 2, High Alert. In terms of local businesses; non-essential shops, gyms, hospitality and entertainment facilities would be able to reopen under tier 2. It was imperative that the message of ‘Hands, Face, Space’ should still be in place to stop the spread of the virus and avoid a move into tier 3. The Leader noted that Croydon had been fortunate to have comparatively low infection rates for London.  Whilst this was the case the Leader stressed it was important that London as a whole had the same rules in place.

 

The Chair of Croydon Health Services, Mike Bell, had addressed Cabinet earlier that day and the Leader reiterated his message that the NHS was open; whether to access GP services or emergency care.

 

Councillor Hollands queried whether the Leader accepted that her Administration was no longer in control of the borough due to financial mismanagement and asked how she expected residents to trust Labour with the council’s finances.

 

The Leader stated that she did not accept the suggestion that the Administration was not in control of the borough. The Leader recognised that they were within straitened financial times and were within emergency measures due to the Section 114 Notice but stressed the council had a controllable budget of £300million annually which delivered vital services.

 

The Leader reiterated that the configuration of services would need to be looked at, including how much was being spent on the delivery of the service and whether that was comparable to other local authorities and whether Croydon was in line with best practice. This was what the Administration was resolutely focused on, as stated by the Leader, along with the improvement journey as it was noted the financial position had not emerged overnight. It was stressed by the Leader that it was important the council continued to deliver services for residents.

 

In his supplementary question, Councillor Hollands stated that Labour had been first elected as the administration in Croydon in 1994 and following that period, in 2003, there had been a 27% council tax increase which he stated was to offset the financial consequences of the time. Such an increase in council tax was not possible, and so Councillor Hollands queried whether critical services would be lost on this occasion.

 

The Leader noted there were caps on how much revenue councils could generate from residents and that the Comprehensive Spending Review released the proceeding week had shown that the government assumed councils would increase council tax by around 4.5-5%, including the Adult Social Care precept. As such, the Leader felt it was clear the government would expect residents to provide additional funding for local government.

 

Councillor Clark queried whether the figure of 400 redundancies at the council in 2020 was correct.

 

The Leader confirmed that while 400 posts had been put at risk of redundancy during the staffing review fewer than 100 members of staff had left or were due to leave the organisation. This was due to the removal of vacant posts and whilst that presented challenges in terms of capacity in the organisation it had reduced the impact on the number staff leaving the council.

 

In his supplementary question, Councillor Clark noted the council’s budget was under severe pressure and painful decisions would be required. In light of these factors, Councillor Clark requested the Leader commit to early and meaningful engagement with trade unions with a view to minimise the impact on staff and services.

 

The Leader confirmed, in her response, that the council was working with the trade unions at an early stage.  The Deputy Leader (Councillor King) and herself had met with Unison the previous week. The Leader stated, she would want to minimise the number of compulsory redundancies but that proper consultation and constructive discussion would need to take place before decisions were made.

 

Pool 1

 

With the end of the time allocated for questions to the Leader, Madam Mayor moved to questions to the Cabinet Members in the first pool. Councillor Avis, Councillor Wood and Councillor Shahul-Hameed were invited to make their announcements.

 

Councillor Shahul-Hameed, Cabinet Member for Economic Recovery & Skills, informed Council that Croydon had been awarded just over £14million in business grants from government of which £8.2million was discretionary grants and the remaining £5.8million had been local restriction support grants for businesses closed from 5 November 2020 due to the restrictions that had been put in place.

 

Council were advised that the mandatory grant payments were being distributed and 1015 businesses had been identified and sent the application form to complete for grants. Once a completed form had been received the grants were processed. In terms of the discretionary grants, the council’s website had been updated and the application process would be opened that week.

 

In her question to Councillor Avis, Councillor Hale noted the Cabinet Member for Homes & Gateway Services had been a strong supporter of labour policies over the previous six years and had, in her opinion, shut down Opposition members who had raised concerns. In light of cuts to the Housing and Gateway services, Councillor Hale questioned whether Councillor Avis regretted her previous decisions.

 

In her response, Councillor Avis stated she did not regret any of her decisions or comments to Opposition Members. Whilst she was proud of a number of initiatives the Administration had put in place she was ashamed of the financial position of the council which would impact vulnerable residents. Councillor Avis reiterated the council would be there to support them but recognised the discretionary services may no longer be delivered.

 

Councillor Hale raised concerns, in her supplementary question that during a period when an increasing number of residents were approaching the Gateway Service that services would be cut. Councillor Hale noted that staff had worked to help people as early as possible to keep their home, stay safe and manage their debts but the council had little choice but to cut those services. In particular, the Welfare Rights Service was highlighted as demand for that service had increased by 300% in the last year.

 

Councillor Avis also recognised, in her response, the work of the Gateway Service but noted that the service had been introduced due to the impact of Universal Credit to ensure families were not adversely affected. Councillor Avis stated the intention was to take the ethos of Gateway and embed it in the council as a whole.

 

In her question Councillor Prince asked whether the Cabinet Member for Economic Recovery & Skills shared her concern that the government had let down businesses by not extending rate relief for retail, leisure and hospitality businesses into 2021/22.

 

Councillor Shahul-Hameed in her response stated the government had let a number of people down and that its decisions had a huge impact on the business community. The night-time economy, was at breaking point and the feedback from businesses was that the grants were not enough to support them during this period. The Cabinet Member stated there was a need for targeted emergency support and noted the decision to not extend the rate relief scheme would have a major impact on those businesses, including possible closures and job losses.

 

In her supplementary question, Councillor Prince stated she was pleased that lobbying of government was taking place and queried whether there had been any indication that the government may u-turn on the decision to not extend the rate relief.

 

Councillor Shahul-Hameed stated in her response that a u-turn was hoped for. The campaign by Croydon BID, which was started during the first lockdown and sought to support businesses over £51,000 was highlighted as it was noted that the government had since announced support for those businesses. The Cabinet Member confirmed that the council would continue to support lobbying for further support for the business community.

 

Councillor Bains, in his question, stated Brick by Brick had been a failure and that, in his opinion, corruption was endemic within the organisation as it had not delivered the number of affordable homes which had been promised. Councillor Bains queried how this made the Cabinet Member feel and whether she would apologise to the vulnerable families on the housing waiting list which had been let down due to, his opinion, her complicity and inaction to rectify the issues within Brick by Brick.

 

In her response, Councillor Avis noted the language used by Councillor Bains was incorrect and suggested it was inflammatory. Councillor Avis pointed to the RIPI which noted that there was a responsibility of all councillors to take their role seriously and to challenge respectively. The Cabinet Member stated that she was sorry for the financial situation the council was in.

 

Following interruptions from Members, Madam Mayor invited the Interim Chief Executive to speak to the meeting. Katherine Kerswell, Interim Chief Executive, stated that whilst she appreciated that the issues were heightened and Members wanted to ensure their views were heard, interjecting whilst a Member was speaking was not permissible in the Council Chamber. The Interim Chief Executive brought to Members attention the Council’s Standing Orders and the Members Code of Conduct which required Members to treat one another with respect and requested that Members abided by Madam Mayor’s rulings.

 

Madam Mayor explained that allegations of corruption or similar allegations were not permissible in the Council Chamber under the Council’s Constitution.

 

Councillor Avis invited the Leader, (as the lead member for Brick by Brick), to answer the question from Councillor Bains.  The Leader, highlighted the RIPI and the reports which were due to be discussed later in the meeting which sought to strengthen governance arrangements and the council’s role as sole shareholder. The Leader, however did raise concerns in relation to the language used within the question and stated that there was no evidence that corruption had taken place.

 

In her question, Councillor Jewitt noted that the covid-19 pandemic had further contributed to resident’s financial insecurity and was impacting on their ability to pay rent. In light of this, Councillor Jewitt questioned what action the council was taking to address those issues.

 

In her response, Councillor Avis, thanked Councillor Jewitt for speaking on the situation that many Croydon residents had found themselves in. There were a number of factors impacting the situation and the Cabinet Member highlighted that earnings in Croydon was lower than other local authorities, austerity and Universal Credit which could lead to residents ending up in poverty and being homeless. The council had been trying to build new homes in Croydon, including affordable homes and officers were working to place families in affordable private accommodation. Furthermore, pan-London solutions were also being considered to stop council’s competing with one another for placements.

 

Councillor Jewitt, in her supplementary question, asked whether the Cabinet Member would be interested in reintroducing the Fair Rent Council to enable the council to ensure landlords were not able to unfairly impact families’ home life.

 

Councillor Avis confirmed that it would be good to reintroduce Fair Rents and that she was aware that there were many people who were lobbying for the reintroduction.

 

Councillor Stranack, in his question, stated that the budget proposal would see cuts of millions of pounds from the voluntary sector whilst asking the sector to take on responsibility for adult social care packages and other services. Councillor Stranack, questioned how the council expected the voluntary sector to take on those additional tasks when its funding had decreased.

 

In response the Cabinet Member for Communities, Safety & Resilience, Councillor Wood, confirmed that as part of the process of balancing the budget that there would be to consider some cuts to the voluntary sector. The Cabinet Member stated that he appreciated the work of the sector, which was one of the largest in London. It was noted, that for six years, funding for the sector had been protected and in the previous year had been increased, whilst some council’s in London did not fund the voluntary sector. Stopping funding for the sector was not being proposed but adjustments and difficult decisions would need to be made. The Cabinet Member stressed that the council would continue to support the sector and conversations were ongoing on how best to do this going forward.

 

Councillor Clark requested an update on the two buildings in the town centre which had Grenfell style cladding in light of the government’s proposals in relation to fire safety.

 

Councillor Avis thanked the Fairfield ward councillors for taking an interest in the two buildings and for speaking with residents of those blocks. The Cabinet Member stated that the advice she had been given by Building Control was that Citiscape was not dangerous and that the council had discharged its responsibilities and it was for the private owner to pursue. In terms of Centrillion, Building Control had been appointed to look at the building and discussions were ongoing to address the cladding.

 

Pool 2

 

With the end of the time allocated to questions to the Cabinet Members in the first pool, Madam Mayor signalled she was moving on to questions to Cabinet Members in the second pool. Councillor King, Councillor Muhammad Ali and Councillor Young were invited to make their announcements.

 

Councillor King, Cabinet Member for Croydon Renewal, informed Members the Chancellor had delivered his statement on the 2021/22 Spending Review the previous week. Key aspects of the Spending Review were highlighted; it was noted that it covered one year only rather than three which would make it difficult to plan in the medium term. The council tax referendum limit had remained at 2% and the adult social care precept could be set at 3% of core funding. The Cabinet Member stated this would equate to an increase of 4.5% in cash terms and that equated to an additional £7.5 million in revenue however £6 million had already been assumed with the current Medium Term Financial Strategy (MTFS). The Cabinet Member further noted that the New Homes Bonus had been retained, however it was proposed that there would be a public sector pay freeze. An impact assessment on the full impact was being undertaken and would inform the budget setting process for 2021/22.

 

Councillor Muhammad Ali, Cabinet Member for Sustainable Croydon, highlighted the consultation on the Crystal Palace and South Norwood Low Traffic Neighbourhood (LTN) was open until the end of the week and all stakeholders were encouraged to engage with the consultation.

 

Councillor Clouder noted that the covid-19 pandemic had impacted London public finances greatly, including Croydon Council’s, and questioned what the current covid-19 funding was.

 

Councillor King agreed that the pandemic had dramatic impact on finances with and estimated impact of £2.6 billion on local government in London alone. Whilst emergency support had been provided by the government, the Cabinet Member stated it was not sufficient to cover all of the costs for the pandemic. Croydon’s return to MHCLG in October 2020 set out an expected expenditure on covid-19 of around £38 million; just under £29 million in unachievable savings and just under £10 million in lost income and fees. The Cabinet Member reported that the total costs of covid-19 amount to £76.5 million while the council had received £33 million in government grants to cover this cost.

 

Councillor Redfern stated that the Croydon Renewal Plan suggested the closure of one or two of the Household Refuse and Recycling Centres (HRRC) which would mean longer journeys for responsible residents to dispose of their waste and would lead to an increase in fly tipping. Furthermore, Councillor Redfern stated that the surrounding roads of the current HRRCs often experienced high traffic levels and queuing and that this would increase if centres were closed. In light of the concerns she had raised, Councillor Redfern queried which ward would experience the high traffic levels.

 

In response, Councillor Muhammad Ali stated that the decision to close any centres had not been made and any proposal would be subject to further work and consultation. Furthermore, any such decision would be subject to impact analysis. The Cabinet Member stressed that it was important that the whole situation was reviewed rather than looking at specific elements.

 

In her supplementary question, Councillor Redfern noted that at the Cabinet meeting the previous week the Cabinet Member had stated that one or two centres would be closed and that her concern was that there was already insufficient capacity and so traffic issues would only increase at the remaining sites.

 

Councillor Muhammad Ali confirmed that he had stated at the Cabinet meeting that one or more centres would be closed but stated that a decision on which one/s had not been made. Furthermore, the Cabinet Member stated that as part of the Depot Strategy investment would be made at one of the remaining sites to ensure there was capacity in place and the traffic plans would align to ensure demand could be managed.

 

In his question, Councillor Jason Cummings noted that page 19 of the PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) report on the Strategic Review of Companies referred to a revolving investment fund and stated that £272 million lending limit had been established in the 2018-2022 MTFS which had been breached by £17.5 million. Councillor Cummings questioned who had authorised that breach and under what power.

 

Councillor King responded and explained the revolving investment fund was being reviewed as part the Brick by Brick recommendations and that the review would also consider the issue Councillor Cummings had raised. Councillor King, stated the recommendations of that review would be presented to Cabinet in February 2020, alongside the budget. In relation to the point raised by Councillor Cummings, the Cabinet Member acknowledged the council’s management of loans had not been adequate and the Administration had been looking to ensure a more robust process was in place to ensure such a situation was not repeated.

 

Councillor Cummings, in his supplementary question, questioned who had authorised exceeding the limit and under what power.

 

The Cabinet Member explained that the Interim Chief Executive had launched an investigation into the decision making over the course of the period in question which would be led by someone from the Local Government Association (LGA). It was felt that Councillor Cummings question would fall within the remit of the investigation and Councillor King committed to check with the Interim Chief Executive that it would be part of the investigation.

 

Councillor Prince questioned whether the Cabinet Member agreed that the 4.5% increase in council core spending power was manifestly unfair as the majority of that money would be a result of council tax increases rather than additional funding from the government.

 

In response, Councillor King replied, that it was positive that the Spending Review had provided for a potential increase of 4.5% in core spending power, however he agreed that the additional money would come from increases in council tax rather than increases to government funding which was required.

 

In her supplementary question, Councillor Prince questioned whether there would be any additional money left once inflation had been taken into consideration.

 

Councillor King responded, by saying that there were elements of the Spending Review which were welcomed, such as the extension of the New Homes Bonus and potential additional covid-19 impact spending. Despite this, the Cabinet Member noted that local government was not properly funded and that on a cross-party basis there was a recognition that local government had not been properly reimbursed for the cost of covid-19 which was a factor for some of the issues faced by the council.

 

Councillor Streeter stated that in 2017, the then, Cabinet Member for Environment & Transport (Councillor King) announced that free parking bays would be introduced across the borough, however since then the council had decided to remove those bays. Councillor Streeter, questioned why it was felt that free parking bays were needed in the run up to a local election but not when the high street was facing its biggest crises since the Second World War.

 

In response Councillor Muhammad Ali explained that policy objectives changed over time and the council was responding to the serious threat of air pollution and the parking policy was now aligned to that threat. The growth in the population and density was highlighted by the Cabinet Member and the aim of the Parking Policy was to respond to challenges whilst maintaining access to homes, businesses and other amenities. Furthermore, the Cabinet Member highlighted that registered vehicles in Croydon had grown from 132,000 in 2001 to 248,000 in 2016 and that was a challenge the council needed to respond to. Parking spaces across the borough were generally oversubscribed which, indicates that the upper price point had not been reached.

 

In his supplementary, Councillor Streeter stated the council faced two crises; the financial crisis and a cultural crisis, as it had struggled with openness and transparency and asked the Cabinet Member to be honest with his answer, that the financial position of the council was driving force for the change.

 

Councillor Muhammad Ali queried which policy Councillor Streeter felt had been disastrous and noted that the Road Traffic Regulations Act was in place which restricted the ability of councils to increase parking charges to be used for savings. The money raised for parking charges was to be used for transport and highway expenditure.

 

Pool 3

 

With the end of the time allocated to questions to the Cabinet Members in the second pool, Madam Mayor signalled she was moving on to questions to Cabinet Members in the third pool. Councillor Lewis, Councillor Flemming and Councillor Campbell were invited to make their announcements.

 

Councillor Flemming, Cabinet Member for Children, Young People & Learning provided an update on plans regarding the SEND pathway which had been developed with Croydon College and Coulsdon College. The SEND pathway was in its third year and had been an outstanding success with 53 students achieving success in their own communities. The service had been developed further for 19-25 year olds and it hoped to extend the programme into a fourth year also.

 

Councillor Campbell, Cabinet Member for Families, Health & Social Care informed Council that the One Croydon Alliance had been shortlisted in two categories of the 2020 Health Service Journal which recognised outstanding contributions to health and social care. Croydon had been shortlisted for System Leadership Initiatives and Local Government Partnership.

 

Councillor Gatland stated that the financial situation faced by the council put vulnerable children at risk as vital services were being cut, such as transport for nursery children with disabilities. Councillor Gatland questioned how the Cabinet Member could defend the choices which had been made.

 

In response, Councillor Flemming stated that there were 27 nursery children with disabilities in the borough, and whilst the transport service was not statutory conversations would take place with each family affected. It was noted that some of these children would be entering mainstream schools in September and so that number may change ahead of difficult decisions being made. The Cabinet Member highlighted that many local authorities did not support similar families in other boroughs and any decision to cut services would be difficult as every child mattered.

 

In her supplementary question, Councillor Gatland stated that previous budget decisions had led to huge levels of debt and decisions that were being made would cause distress and anxiety to vulnerable children, their families and to staff. It was suggested that cuts would continue due to further overspending.

 

Councillor Flemming stated that the service was underfunded and growth had been planned to address some of the structural issues due to the underfunding. The council was working with PwC to understand benchmarking and support writing budgets for services. Savings would be made in services where it was right and proper. Challenge would be received both externally and from partners at Camden Council to ensure the best service was being delivered for the most vulnerable during the continued improvement journey.

 

Councillor Bernadette Khan queried what the implications of the spending review on adult social service was.

 

In response, Councillor Campbell confirmed the council had been working closely with the London Government Association (LGA) in order to reduce costs safely and carefully. Targeted projects had been rolled out which had reduced spending by 5%. The Cabinet Member stated that the council was committed to the eight core ways of working; including direct payments, appraising in-house services and would frequently assessing the financial position.

 

Councillor Bernadette Khan, in her supplementary question, asked whether the Cabinet Member agreed that the government needed to provide greater certainty of the long term sustainable solution to the funding of adult social care, especially in light of the impact of covid-19.

 

Councillor Campbell agreed that adult social care had paid the price during the pandemic and the council was still waiting to be recompensed as the government had promised.  Since the Care Act 2014, the Cabinet Member stated there had been various initiatives which had not resolved the issue of underfunding. Councillor Campbell was pleased to note that social care had not been forgotten in the future plans of the NHS. An integrated care system was being worked on jointly by both local government and the Nation Health Service (NHS).

 

Councillor Roche stated that there was evidence within a report issued the previous year that Labour were considering options to close libraries across the borough.  This had been denied by the Cabinet Member. It was stated that libraries were particularly used by the elderly and vulnerable residents across the borough and were a lifeline for those who were lonely and isolated. In light of the concerns raised, Councillor Roche, asked what the Cabinet Member’s message was to residents who were at risk of losing their local library and whether he would apologise for the financial position the council was in.

 

The Cabinet Member for Culture & Regeneration, Councillor Lewis, suggested that Councillor Roche was being disingenuous as the recommendations within the report referred to had been rejected at the time.  However, the circumstances at that time were radically different.  It was recognised that, now, the council had to make tough decisions to reduce expenditure and that included going out to consultation on the future of five libraries. Councillor Lewis, stated that it was hoped that the consultation would be able to establish alternative operating models, such as the community model used at the Upper Norwood library hub.  This would enable the continued use of those sites included within the consultation. The Cabinet Member concluded that there were 13 libraries in the borough which was higher than neighbouring boroughs and the provision needed to be reviewed as part of the budget decisions which had to be made.

 

In his supplementary question, Councillor Roche stated that further concern was that during a time when the council should be encouraging people to be fit and healthy it would be closing leisure centres. It was questioned which sites were at risk of closure.

 

Councillor Lewis noted that there had been a debate on the future of Purley pool earlier in the meeting and that he had made commitments to continue conversations with residents and he hoped that it would be possible to explore community models of operation which were cost neutral to the council going forward.

 

Councillor Fraser queried how sustainable the GLL contract for leisure facilities was in light of usage during the pandemic.

 

In response, Councillor Lewis noted that there were a number of leisure facilities across the borough, some of which ran on a surplus and others ran at a deficit. During normal times the surplus and deficit was roughly at an equilibrium.  During the previous year, with the pandemic, the leisure facilities had been closed for a number of months. Since reopening, facilities were operating at around 40% capacity which put a huge pressure on the operator, GLL. The council was working with GLL to improve sustainability and for the estate as a whole to produce a surplus.

 

In his supplementary question Councillor Fraser queried what measures had been put in place to improve the sustainability of the contract.

 

Councillor Lewis reiterated that the council was seeking to enhance the sustainability of the contract by applying for external funding and support, reviewing operation model of some facilities to reduce the cost of operation and developing invest to generate proposals. Additionally, the council was having to consider potentially closing some venues where costs could not be reduced and invest to generate proposals were not appropriate.

 

Councillor Hopley added her congratulations in relation to the One Alliance being shortlisted for awards. In her question she asked the Cabinet Member how she expected vulnerable residents to survive, when £9million of cuts were being made to care packages.

 

Councillor Campbell responded, that vulnerable residents would not suffer as they were in good hands and whilst cuts would be made due to the financial position of the council, the council would continue to look after its residents.

 

In her supplementary question, Councillor Hopley stated the specialist employment disability service had been cut which had left vulnerable residents without support. She asked what the Cabinet Member had against vulnerable residents and questioned whether those impacted would be written to and apologised to.

 

Councillor Campbell replied by saying, that she had nothing against vulnerable residents and that supporting the most vulnerable had been the reason she had become a councillor. She reiterated that the cuts being made to services was due to the financial position of the council and noted that the previous budgets of the council had been agreed by both Groups and so it was important for all councillors to take responsibility for the financial position.

 

Councillor Fraser queried what factors had been taken into consideration when selecting the libraries to be included in the consultation.

 

In response, Councillor Lewis stated that factors had included footfall, book issues, number of sessions, the geography of the libraries, equalities impact of closure and the recent repairs and maintenance costs of the venues. The Cabinet Member confirmed that any proposals would be subject to lengthy and detailed statutory consultations.  The consultation would start in the new year.

 

With an end to the time allocated to questions to Cabinet Members in the third pool, Madam Mayor brought Croydon Question Time to a close.