Agenda item

The Leader of Croydon Council, Councillor Tony Newman, was in attendance at the meeting to provide an update on the Administration’s plans for the next four years which would be based upon the 283 pledges set out in the Labour Party election manifesto, Ambitious for Croydon. During the course of the Leaders presentation the following was noted:-

·The redevelopment of the Fairfield Halls was on track for the venue to reopen in early 2019. It was expected that information about acts appearing at the Halls would be announced in the near future.

·The Onside Youth Zone, which was being delivered through a combination of public and private investment, was currently onsite and was due to open next year. Once complete it would provide an excellent facility for young people across the borough.

·A recent peer review of Adult Social Care had highlighted the excellent performance within the Service.

·Following the inadequate rating of Children’s Services in September 2017, further investment had been allocated to continue the work to drive improvements in the Service, with real progress being shown. There were wider issues relating to the underfunding of Children’s Services across country but this had not stopped progress from being made.

·Progress continued to be made on the Westfield/Hammerson regeneration project for the town centre of Croydon, which had received support from both City Hall and the Government. Going forward, over next few years, it would be a huge challenge for the Council to oversee a project of the magnitude proposed.

·A new Corporal Plan was being developed and would be brought to Council in September. The Plan would translate the Labour Party Election Manifesto into a plan for the next four years. The Plan would emphasis working with the public and local communities and in particular focus on how the Council delivers its Services and who with.

·In recent years there had been cuts to local Government funding from central Government of approximately 65 – 70%. It was a tribute to the work and foresight of the Council that it was in a reasonably fortunate position in comparison to many other local authorities, but the impact from the cuts should not be underestimated. Looking forward, Croydon Council would be well placed to benefit from the Government’s new scheme which would see local authorities being able to retain a large proportion of any new business rates generated within the Borough.

·Progress on the Clean, Green, Sustainable Croydon project continued with a new scheme for household waste and recycling due to be launched in September 2018.

·The Healthy Croydon project continued to frame the health agenda with a focus upon prevention. Given the reduction in funding over recent years it was essential to develop new and innovative services with partners that met resident’s needs.

·Safer Croydon was a campaign to reduce knife crime in Croydon. Recent statistic had shown that Croydon was the only borough in London which had seen a decrease in knife crime, which demonstrated that the project was having an impact even though it was still in its infancy.

·Along with the Fairfield Halls redevelopment cultural regeneration was also planned across the Borough with investment in Stanley Halls in South Norwood the most recent example. Key aims in this area would include ensuring that there was a diverse cultural offering which benefited cultural centres across the Borough.

Following the Leader’s presentation, the members of the Scrutiny and Overview Committee were given the opportunity to question the Leader. The first question concerned the Leader’s proudest achievements over the previous four years? In response it was advised that the increasing sense of place and identity for Croydon, with local people being proactively proud of the borough was an important achievement. The level of new investment in the town, with Body Shop relocating its headquarters and the regeneration of the Fairfield Halls amongst a number of projects was also important. The Council’s continuing role in working with partners to deliver improvements in many areas, such as healthcare, should also be recognised.

As a follow up it was also questioned whether there was anything that could have been done differently over the same time period? It was advised that with the benefit of hindsight, opportunities to improve the performance of Children’s Services should have been taken earlier, however the Council was now starting to deliver real improvement in this area.

It was questioned how increased input from local communities would be used to inform the Clean, Green, Sustainable Croydon project. In response it was confirmed that there were opportunities for public involvement to inform the future use of local parks including the facilities provided. Other ongoing work in this area included reviewing the Council’s procurement policy on what was being used to clean streets and parks and also pushing for an extension to the London Air Quality programme to include Croydon.

It was agreed that further work was needed on educating residents about their own responsibilities to the environment. The Council had taken the lead in certain areas such as the campaign focussed on turning off cars when waiting for children at school gates. It was the view of the Administration that the Council should be taking a lead in this area and providing an example for residents.

It was noted that the deadline for certain projects in the capital programme had been extended and as such it was questioned what could be done to ensure that that future projects were delivered on time. In response it was advised that projects of the scale of the Fairfield Halls redevelopment could often be subject to unforeseen complications as the project progressed. It was always the Council’s target for projects to be delivered on time, but it was good to be open and honest about any challenges that arose which resulted in slippage.  Conversely It would not be beneficial to create artificially long deadlines for projects simply to ensure that they were completed on time.

Given that the project to redevelop the Fairfield Halls had slipped it was questioned whether there was contingency to mitigate against this risk and what the cost had been for overrunning. It was confirmed that the budget for the project had not been impacted as a result of the extended time frame for the project. The Administration was comfortable with the extended time frame as it wanted the venue to be in pristine condition when it opened. As with any project there would be lessons to learn and the Fairfield Halls project was particularly important as one of the largest infrastructure projects run by the Council in recent years.

As it had previously been noted that the Westfield/Hammerson project would lead to the creation of approximately 7000 jobs, it was questioned what kind of jobs these would be? It was confirmed that there was an expectation that any jobs created would be paying the London living wage as a minimum starting point. An updated model based on the version used at the Westfield development in Stratford would be used, which would have a jobs and training academy onsite to deliver jobs for local people.

Given the level of investment in Croydon town centre it was questioned whether there were plans to develop the surrounding town centres in the Borough, such as Coulsdon and Purley. It was confirmed that the Council was working hard across the borough to deliver a number of different projects which included supporting the creation of a New Addington Business Improvement District and discussions were beginning on possible improvements for Purley and Thornton Heath.

It was also questioned how the other Borough centres could be encouraged to “take up the slack” from Croydon during the Westfield regeneration. It was confirmed that possible options for devolution would be considered, with local Ward budgets having already been introduced. Other possibilities could include investigating the viability of establishing town or community councils to ensure that local communities felt ownership over decisions effecting their area.

The provision of the Onside Youth Zone facility was welcomed, but it was also noted that it may be a challenge to attract young people from across the Borough to the one venue. In response it was confirmed that the Council was keen to attract as many young people as possible to the facility, but work was also needed to consider how it interacted with other traditional youth services.

A question was asked on whether there was a contingency plan to mitigate against any negative impact arising from Brexit? It was advised that at present there were still a large number of unknowns about the potential outcome from Brexit, but it did represent the biggest risk to the economy of Croydon, London and the country as a whole. In the meantime the Council would continue to do all it could to welcome new investment and business to the Borough.

As a follow up it was noted that there were a large number European Union citizens in the Borough and as such it was questioned what Croydon could do to help these people? It was confirmed that this was something the Council was investigating, in conjunction with the Mayor of London. The ongoing message was that EU citizens were welcome in the borough and the Council would want to provide support for people if future issues should arise.

In light of a continually reducing budget it was highlighted that it was essential for the Council to ensure that its services were made available in the most accessible format whether that be through a physical interface or online. The Leader advised that there were still pockets of inequality within the borough, which was not acceptable, and it was an important challenge for the Administration to continue to play a role in addressing these inequalities over the next four years. One of the key roles of the Council was to ensure that people could access services and to do this work was needed with partners at a strategic level to ensure that the right infrastructure was in place.

Although the very positive outcomes from the peer review of Adult Social Care were welcomed, a note of caution was voiced that the outcomes from the Ofsted review of Children’s Services had not been foreseen and as such reassurance was sought that a similar situation would not occur in Adult Social Care. It was advised that the Ofsted report raised concerns that the voice of the service user was not being heard in the process, but from the Peer Review of Adult Social Care reassurance could be taken from the outcomes indicating that the voice of the user was heard. At present the Council was looking to deliver sustainable improvement in Children’s Services and was keen to ensure that there was no complacency within Adult Social Care, with a clear need to remain on top of performance.

It was noted that there were plans to review the governance arrangements of the Council with a view to tapping into the experience of as wide a range of Councillors as possible. It was agreed that Scrutiny worked well in Croydon, but there was a greater need for the Council as a whole to agree its response to wider issues, as this was more powerful approach than being divided along party political lines. Coupled with this, there was also a drive for greater devolution and community decision making.

In response to a question about the Administration’s vision for the community of Croydon in terms of outcomes for ordinary people, it was advised that the provision of affordable homes was a key issue. If there was adequate provision, it would encourage people to put down roots within the borough. Another key challenge was how to look after the needs of the increasingly elderly population within the Borough, with the Council able to play a big role in this through partnership working.