Home > Agenda item

Agenda item

Cabinet Member Question Time: Cabinet Member for Environment Transport and Regeneration

Question time with the Cabinet Member for Environment Transport and Regeneration, Councillor Stuart King.

Minutes:

The Cabinet Member for Environment Transport and Regeneration, Councillor Stuart King, gave a presentation on the Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Tensions arising from areas within his portfolio.

The Sub-Committee was informed that there were 33 specific commitments within the Manifesto which applied specifically to his portfolio. In order for these objectives to be achieved, there needed to be clear political and managerial leadership behind the plans.

The presentation highlighted the following:

  • The Borough was experiencing rapid growth with a unique growth zone model which will have £3mil investment on social infrastructure, public realm and transport over the next few years.
  • The £100mil plus contract awarded to Conway for the Next Generation Highways contract
  • Lack of financial support to deliver the Tram extension irrespective of Transport for London’s (TFL) support for the extension.
  • As TFL no longer received revenue funding from government, there were challenges to the Blackhorse Lane project and the Mayors support on this would be welcomed.
  • Increase of car ownership has proved to be a challenge in the drive to deliver 80% across London of the Mayors Transport Strategy for journeys to be completed through cycling or other methods such as walking or public transport.
  • Brighton Mainline upgrade was underway following various consultation events having taken place.
  • A bus review for the south of the Borough was in progress with plans in place for the review to be extended to the north of the Borough.

It was questioned what has been done by the Council to ensure that the current plans for the Blackhorse Lane bridge did not continue to be delayed. The Cabinet Member responded that a lot had already been done through official and political channels and that this was a joint procurement process between the Council and TFL. As an interested stakeholder, a robust challenge had been made to the contractor about how unacceptable the delays were. TFL had also been informed to hold the contactor to account.

It was further asked what mitigation measures had been put in place for business owners in the area who petitioned for a discount during this period and it was suggested that a co-ordinated Cabinet response was required on this matter. The Cabinet Member responded that compensation was being sought from TFL, and discussions were taking place with the Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources regarding the application of business rates relief for those affected.

 

It was also acknowledged that there would be a need for a closure to pedestrians at some point during the works to the Bridge. A Member enquired whether it would be possible to ensure that this did not occur during school term time. The Cabinet Member replied that it was difficult to guarantee that the work would not occur during school times, but it had been requested for escorted access to be arranged during school times in the am and pm in the event of closures to minimise disruption where possible.

A Member questioned the value of the work completed on Public Realm projects. The Cabinet Member responded that the pedestrianisation of the high street and the activities that had occurred in that space to date had been exciting and well received.

It was highlighted that the government had announced that an extra £420 mil would be spent on potholes and queried if Croydon was eligible for a share. The Cabinet Member responded that Croydon was not eligible for a share, this was one of features of devolution in London. London car drivers pay £500mil in vehicle excise duty, the government pays nothing in revenue funding to TFL and the whole £500mi of vehicle excise duty was being spent on roads outside of London. It was regrettable that the Council was not funded properly and devolution for vehicle excise duty money had been called for on many occasions.

It was commented that the Royal Society of Public Health had published a report which highlighted three entries from Croydon in London’s top 10 unhealthiest streets. The Cabinet Member felt that this report painted an inaccurate picture of the north of the Borough, especially in light of the recent £2.4mil regeneration of Thornton Heath High Street which had brought the community together. An evaluation would be organised to assess the impact of the work completed on public realm and whether the outcomes intended had been realised. There was an aspiration for more work to be undertaken in the area over the next 3 years

A Member highlighted that it was almost the two year anniversary of the Tram incident and as such it was disappointing that many of the recommendations made at meetings following the incident had yet to be implemented. The Cabinet Member acknowledged the approach to this poignant time and informed the Sub-Committee that the Leader was in the process of writing to TFL regarding the recommendations that had not yet been completed. A paper would be presented at Cabinet later this year on the internal Council review of the response to the incident and along with any lessons learnt.

A Member raised concerns from ward residents regarding the reduction in frequency of many bus routes as well as the removal of bus stops in their area despite consultation which recommended to retain them. It was asked how confident officers were that TFL would listen to residents and the Council during the upcoming bus review particularly in light of budget constraints. Additionally reassurance was sought that the Local Plan would form part of the decision making process for the bus review in light of the expected growth of the borough.

Officers responded that discussions had taken place with TFL regarding the concerns shared and that residents may view the consultation as simply a box ticking exercise. Officers had been clear that they want the best outcome for Croydon and were confident that there would be a positive outcome. TFL were clear that the Council was willing to take a private as well as a public approach to address concerns if necessary, but were confident that the desired outcome could be achieved without taking this approach. Croydon was one of the few boroughs in which bus usage had risen with figures showing a 6% increase and as such it would be in TfL’s best interest to invest in the borough.

It was commented that it would be beneficial to see the timeline of the bus review and influence on Petal (PTL) ratings on decision making. The Cabinet Member responded that the review was in its early stages and encouraged all Ward Councillors to engage with the process and ensure that their input was fed into the consultation.

A Member noted that while TfL had finalised a good scheme for the 5 ways improvement, the work would not commence until 2021 and questioned whether there was scope to bring the start date forward. Officers replied that this was a much improved scheme and one of the challenges for time scale was the environmental assessment that had to take place prior to proceeding with the project. Additionally, as large sums of public money was to be used on the scheme, a rigorous procurement process would be needed to sign up the right consultants and contractors to deliver the budget on time and to the expected standards. This also contributed to delays in schemes such as this.

Officers informed the Sub-Committee that in terms of the timeline for delivery of the scheme, it would be going through planning process over the next six months. TFL were preparing to submit screening opinion to the Council to determine the environmental impact and planning requirements. Beyond that there was an extended 2 year periods for detailed planning designs, followed by a construction period of two years. The Council was working with TFL to identify and shorten time scale where possible. There was still a long way to go and at this stage the Council was working with Westfield to establish how both parties would interact with each other.

It was questioned what had been done to achieve the cycling targets, how realistic the targets from Central Government and TFL were and whether there was more funding available to realise projects given the intensification of Croydon. Officers advised that Croydon was fortunate that through the Growth Zone programme there was £309mil funding available for infrastructure investment over the next 20 years, which had been earmarked for over 46 projects. Part of the programme of funding had an element for cycling which will fund programmes in the wider cycling strategy.

The Chair raised questions on the school travel programme which, although a very good idea, had not produced the desired outcomes. Some schools had worked very hard on the programme, but there was little evidence of their progress. It was disappointing that a significant amount of children attended schools that did not consider the impact of travel on children and the environment a priority. It would be beneficial for the Sub-Committee to be provided with figures on the percentage of schools that had received accreditation.

Officers responded that it was expected that the percentage would be significant. In particular for new schools which required accreditation as part of their planning process. The Council had been working extensively with schools and encouraged them to attain at least bronze accreditation. It was acknowledged that it was more difficult due to the lack of ability to enforce the programme in existing schools, but instead work was focused on encouraging and engaging school leaders to expand their role from that of just an educational remit.

The Chair welcomed the series of consultations on the Brighton Main Line (BML) upgrade but was concerned about potential disruption and impact for East Croydon. The Cabinet Member stated that the Council was supporting of the BML upgrade due to the benefits it would deliver for the transport links in the area as well as the wider economic benefits. It was acknowledged that there had already been disruption to current services from the upgrade, which would be short term and needed to be absorbed in order to realise the potential long term benefits.

The Chair also commented on the lack of connectivity from inner London Boroughs to the north of Croydon and suggested that this needed increased consideration due to the impending expected increase in growth. The lack of connectivity would result in the north of the borough being unable to sustain the growth expected. It was questioned what representations had been made to the Mayor and Government about the need to connect the Croydon tram system to its neighbours.

Officers responded that these points had been raised with Heidi Alexander, Deputy Mayor for Transport and letters were being sent to make a case for the extension of public transport. Funding had been identified for West Croydon station and in order to deliver the Mayor’s ambition of 80% sustainable travel more work was needed.

The Chair thanked the Cabinet Member and officers for answers to questions.

In reaching its recommendations, the Committee reached the following CONCLUSIONS:

  1. The Cabinet Member and officers were thanked for their presentation and report.
  2. That going forward, rolling trackers for recommendations would be implemented to ensure that they were being monitored and completed as required.
  3. There was a concern at the lack of progress made on some of the recommendations that has been made over the last few years, in particular in relation to bonfires, smoke control and the impact on air quality.

The Committee RESOLVED to:

  1. Recommend to the Cabinet Member for Environment, Transport and Regeneration for exact timescales to be provided on the resolution of outstanding recommendations.
  2. Recommend to the Cabinet Member for Environment, Transport and Regeneration for a review of Public byelaws to take place despite constraints.

Recommend to Cabinet that Business Rates Relief be considered for those affected by the delays in the completion of the Blackhorse Lane Bridge.

Supporting documents: