Agenda item

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 had subsequently stopped using these consultants to save on their costs. Members heard that lessons had been learnt regarding contracting with a new entrant to a market and that this had informed the approach recommended in the paper. The Corporate Director of SCRER explained that the former contract had focussed on wider outcomes at the expense of the core business of the contract. A large emphasis had also been given to the potential income from the contract, and market testing had now shown was never going to be viable. The Sub-Committee heard that as a result of these combined factors, the Council was always in a difficult position and it was acknowledged that the Council had been too quick to agree to the removal of existing bus shelters and could have looked at purchasing the in-place street furniture. Members heard that these lessons had been reflected in the proposals being considered.

The Sub-Committee asked if the Council had explored the equalities impact of the removal of bus shelters on groups with protected characteristics. The Corporate Director of SCRER responded that he did not believe this had been looked at when bus shelters were removed but acknowledged that this could have affected some groups disproportionately.

Members asked about the process and costs for receiving advertising consents, and whether the Council or TfL would be responsible for acquiring these consents. The Sub-Committee heard that the cost was £578.00 per advertising consent application but that existing consents could likely be utilised where they had already been granted. Members heard that costs for consents were usually borne by the benefitting party, which in this case would be TfL, and that this was the Council’s position. The Acting Head of Commercial Management stated that negotiations on this topic had not yet taken place. The Sub-Committee asked about transferring the Council’s existing advertising consents to TfL and was informed that this could be done with the provision that what was installed met the conditions of the granted consent.

The Sub-Committee asked about ‘Out of Home’ (OOH) advertising opportunities that the Council would be exploring and heard that the Council had the opportunity to go to the market, for property it already owned, to invite businesses to advertise on these sites on a concession basis. Members heard that the Council would look to receive a share of this revenue and that primary and secondary high streets would be considered. The Chair asked if the expected advertising revenue from bus shelters had been quantified. Members heard that, based on the previous contract, this had been estimated at £50,000 annually in a best case scenario. The Acting Head of Commercial Management explained that this was not being viewed as lost income as none had been received for this in the last four years and because there was no income expectation for this area in the Council’s budget.

Members asked for clarification on how bus shelter sites would be chosen and whether there would be an opportunity for resident input. The Director for Streets & Environment explained that the new bus shelters would be located on the same sites as previously; a dedicated officer would be working at pace to ensure bus shelters were installed at these locations, working in partnership with TfL. The Sub-Committee asked how the delivery plan would be prioritised and heard that this would be decided by TfL in consultation with officers, but locations with the highest footfall and least complicated installations would likely be the first considered. Members acknowledged this, but asked that there be consideration of prioritising areas that most affected vulnerable residents. Members heard that, due to the relationship with TfL, the Council could request this but would not be able to enforce it.

The Chair asked if the Council would have any mechanism to require TfL to install bus shelters at locations where it felt these were necessary. The Acting Head of Commercial Management explained that TfL determined whether a bus shelter should be installed based on a minimum of 50 boardings per day from that particular stop, and that anything outside of this would likely require alternative funding. The Corporate Director of SCRER explained that, when the Council self-delivered bus shelters, these locations still had to be agreed with TfL to ensure bus services were still viable.

The Sub-Committee asked about the timeline and mobilisation plan for the delivery of bus shelters. The Acting Head of Commercial Management responded that this was not yet in place but that a dedicated officer would be working on this with TfL, and that TfL were motivated to move at speed to generate additional advertising revenue and improved customer experience.

Members asked about maintenance reporting and responsibility for carrying out repair and cleaning work. The Sub-Committee heard that this would work as it did for all other TfL maintained bus shelters, with maintenance, reporting and cleaning all looked after by TfL. The Director of Streets & Environments explained that maintenance reports to the Council would be passed on to TfL, but that direct reports to TfL were also possible and would be promoted. Maintenance reporting could come through residents, bus drivers and TfL inspections.

The Sub-Committee asked if the Council had spoken with other boroughs currently in a similar relationship with TfL to find out what their experience had been. Members heard that 30 other London boroughs used TfL for bus shelter provision and that TfL were experts in bus shelter delivery who best understood their customers and had existing relationships with suppliers.

Members asked how the Council could ensure delivery of all 114 bus shelters and what would happen if there was slippage in delivery targets. The Director of Streets & Environment explained that the Council had been developing a relationship with TfL in a number of areas; there would be regular programme meetings to monitor and track the delivery of bus shelters and to identify any issues. The Sub-Committee heard that, under the proposed option, there would not be an option for penalties as this was not a contract but a mutual agreement built on trust. The Corporate Director for SCRER explained that bus shelters were key infrastructure that TfL required to deliver their business, and TfL had previously made clear that the lack of bus shelter provision in the borough was a problem for them. Members heard that the Council would have to look at self-delivery if the proposed option did not deliver bus shelters, but that this would need to be built on the understanding of why this had happened to ensure infrastructure was correct.

Members asked what features the bus shelters would have, and heard that ‘countdown’ timers would be installed where bus shelters had this previously; outside of this, any additional features would be a commercial decision for TfL. The Sub-Committee asked if the Council would encourage or campaign for additional ‘countdown’ timers, and heard that Croydon would use its influence to this end where possible as it was acknowledged that this was a positive feature for residents. It was restated that whilst the Council would do its best to influence decision making, it could not dictate to TfL what to do.

The Sub-Committee asked if it would be possible to compile a map of bus stop locations particularly used by vulnerable groups, or close to nurseries, to aid in prioritising the delivery programme of bus shelters. The Director of Streets & Environment explained that the Council did not have the resource to do this and highlighted that TfL decided on placement of bus shelters via usage metrics.

The Executive Mayor thanked the Sub-Committee for their questions and highlighted the reduced risk to the Council by handing the bus shelter responsibility to TfL, who would be motivated to deliver bus shelters at pace. Members heard that TfL had installed four bus shelters in the borough already, based on footfall, and it was stated that this would likely pick up some of the locations the Sub-Committee had raised as particularly affecting vulnerable people, such as hospitals. The Executive Mayor acknowledged that it had taken a long time to remediate the situation, but stated that it had been important to protect the Council from legal exposure.

The Corporate Director for SCRER added that TfL already provided a large amount of infrastructure in the borough (including trams, some A roads, some roundabouts, traffic lights, etc.) and that TfL and the Council already worked in partnership on a daily basis. Members heard that the Council already had a good working partnership with TfL and that this agreement would be an extension of the existing relationship.

Conclusions

1. The Sub-Committee welcomed the decision and encouraged the Council to work with Transport for London (TfL) to ensure that as many bus shelters as possible are delivered at pace and requested a future update on the progress of the delivery programme.

2. The Sub-Committee concluded that they would like an update, once bus shelters had been delivered, to inform Members on the number and types of maintenance requests submitted to TfL by the public, bus drivers and TfL inspectors regarding bus shelter maintenance.

3. The Sub-Committee concluded that they would like to receive an update on advertising consent for bus shelters at a future meeting.

Recommendations

1. The Sub-Committee recommended that the Council develop a communication strategy to inform residents how to report maintenance and repair issues regarding bus shelters.

2. The Sub-Committee recommended that the Council use its relationship and influence with Transport for London (TfL) to ensure as many new bus shelters as possible feature ‘countdown’ timers.