LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY

LONDON BOROUGH OF BROMLEY MINUTES of the proceedings of the Meeting of the Council of the Borough held on Monday 20th September 2004 Present: The Worshipful the Mayor Councillor Mrs Anne Manning The Deputy Mayor Councillor Roger Charsley Councillors Reg Adams Graham Arthur Ruth Bennett Colin Bloom P J Bloomfield Mrs I A Buckley Stephen Carr Paul Clark Martin A Curry Peter Dean Peter Fookes Chris Gaster John Getgood G C Gostt Julian Grainger John Holbrook Carole Hubbard Brian Humphrys John Ince Gordon Jenkins Adrian Marshall David McBride A Michael Ernest Noad Tony Owen Chris Phillips Denise Reddin Martyn Reddin Neil Reddin Rod Reed Catherine Rideout Charles Rideout CVO QPM Bob Shekyls Colin P Smith Tim Stevens George Taylor Brenda Thompson Michael Tickner Brian Toms Michael Turner A.M. Wilkinson Colin Willetts Peter Woods Chris Wordingham Mrs Joan Wykes O.B.E In the Chair The Mayor Councillor Mrs Anne Manning 28 APOLOGIES Apologies for absence were received from Councillors Katy Boughey, John Canvin, Jane Connor, Sue Gibbens, Grace Goodlad, Mrs Hillier, 1 S Huntington-Thresher, Charles Joel, Chris Maines, Russell Mellor, Denise Payton, Jenny Powell, and Karen Roberts, 29 MINUTES The Minutes of the Meetings held on 5th July were confirmed. The Minutes of the special meeting were amended in Minute 15 (Date of Special Meeting) by the deletion of the words “consider the grant of” and the insertion of the word “bestow.” The Minutes of the ordinary meeting were amended in Minute 25 (Motion – Postal voting) by the addition of the following at the end of the paragraph:“This Amendment was CARRIED and the Motion, duly amended was adopted in these terms” 30 DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST Councillor Fookes declared a personal interest in item 9 (Rachel Notley Day Centre) as a member of Penge and Anerley Age Concern. 31 QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC These are attached at Appendix A. The Mayor indicated that in future she might direct questions to the appropriate Portfolio Holder meeting, where appropriate, rather than deal with them at Council meetings 32 QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS These are attached at Appendices B, and C. 33 NINTH LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL A Motion to adopt the recommendations in the report of the Director of Legal and Democratic Services was proposed seconded and adopted. It was RESOLVED:- 2 (i) to make provision in respect of the control of portable advertisements; providing better powers to deal with fly posting and graffiti including powers of seizure and stronger penalties; making further provision about unauthorised advertisement hoardings; to provide for telephone call barring for numbers mentioned in unauthorised advertisements including those placed in telephone kiosks; strengthening Councils‟ powers as regards the control of waste and the use of street litter control notices; prescribing how recyclable waste should be separated, enabling the making of standard regulations about the use of waste receptacles; charging for additional household waste collections; providing further powers to deal with waste on private land; strengthening and extending the law relating to litter including powers to deal with litter and waste in aquatic environments and dealing with littering from vehicles; controlling the use of civic amenity sites; dealing with waste transfer notes and licences; strengthening enforcement against fly-tipping; strengthening powers to deal with abandoned vehicles and providing powers to remove and dispose of nuisance and other vehicles; updating the law on intruder alarms; dealing with construction noise from underground stations; dealing with control of noise nuisance from street works; providing stronger powers to deal with noise nuisance; strengthening enforcement against illegal “near beer” premises; dealing with the display or possession for supply of R18 videos in unlicensed sex shops; allowing conditions relating to waste and litter to be attached to premises licences under the Licensing Act 2003; dealing with fees for premises and personal licences in London under that Act; increasing the number of members who can sit on licensing committees under that Act; enabling the provision of cleaning up conditions at licensed special events; dealing with charitable collections on the highway and public places; amending the law relating to street trading including dealing with shop forecourts, bridges over the Thames and the South Bank; introducing the licensing of proprietary clubs; altering the law relating to the licensing of special treatment premises, to include dealing with nail art, mobile premises, and premises under the Registered Homes Act; dealing with bicycle rickshaws or pedicabs; amending and extending the law relating to parking and parking enforcement including dealing with repeat offenders, and with motorcycles on the footway; dealing with cycling on the pavement; dealing with abandoned bicycles and other bicycles left in public places; dealing with filming on the highway and in open spaces and making further provision about filming in London; dealing with chairs and tables and other things placed on the highway including the making of additional charges; altering the law relating to overhanging vegetation on the highway; providing exemptions from traffic restrictions for waste collection and road sweeping vehicles; making further provision about vehicle crossovers and driving off the 3 carriageway; removal of articles attached to street furniture and other objects on or abutting the highway; removal of disused telephone kiosks and other disused apparatus and street furniture; the decriminalisation of low emission zone enforcement; stopping vehicles for emissions testing; enabling Councils to provide “wi-fi” technology; providing for the registration of second-hand dealers; providing for the control or prohibition of smoking in public places or the work place; the provision of consumer advice; altering the concessionary fares scheme; the registration of businesses who provide mail forwarding services; enabling Councils to obtain the names and addresses of people whose telephone numbers are publicised in connection with unlawful activity, including unlawful street trading of vehicles; further decriminalisation of offences prosecuted by local authorities and the introduction of a penalty charge notice regime akin to parking; extending Councils‟ powers to serve fixed penalty notices to include offences not currently covered; delegating the issuing of fixed penalty notices and further flexibility in relation to fixed penalty notices procedures, including provision for early payment and service of notices on those aged 16 and above; sharing of information to combat benefit fraud and for other purposes; co-operation on pension fund management; altering the London Boroughs Grant Scheme; altering the planning cycle on schools admission; amending the law relating to pipe subways; extending Councils‟ powers to charge for services; enabling zoning powers within which higher fines can be imposed in relation to certain offences; the change of use of residential property under Town and Country Planning law; enabling schemes of information to be provided; authorising the disturbance of human remains to enable existing graves to be used for further interments; implementing security arrangements in housing estates; strengthening the law relating to short-term letting; providing for the registration of persons able to accept service of notices on behalf of landlords; (in the case of the London Borough of Camden) removing restrictions on the placing of temporary structures in Lincoln‟s Inn Fields; the regulation of bonfires; the further regulation of use of fireworks; the control of storage or use of acetylene cylinders; further powers to deal with abandoned shopping trolleys and luggage trolleys; allowing charging for discretionary services; relaxing VAT partial exemption restrictions on Councils; removing certain existing capital finance restrictions on Councils; enabling Councils to provide services to a wider market; relaxing requirements relating to tramlines in the road; dealing with overgrown vegetation and other unsightly material on private premises; strengthening the law relating to spitting in public places; further regulating the location of telecommunications masts and base stations to ensure telecommunications operators share sites; and to strengthen planning law relating to the siting of masts; mandatory consultation by water companies with Councils about mains water 4 pressure; enabling charging for the reinspection of premises under certain statutory regimes; making minor amendments to the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 and other local legislation; removing the requirement to provide signs indicating the overnight parking ban for commercial vehicles; extending Councils‟ powers to make byelaws; enabling Councils to impose a local levy on plastic bags, takeaway food packaging, chewing gum and cigarette packet wrappers; to alter powers of entry of Council officers, particularly those of trading standards officers; to enable Courts to make orders to disqualify persons from holding company directorships if repeatedly found guilty of certain offences relating to the degradation of the amenity of an area or the unlawful sale of products to underage persons; enabling councils to gate off nuisance alleyways and passages and enabling Councils to collaborate further in the provision of services; (ii) to enact any additional, supplemental and consequential provisions that may appear to be necessary or convenient. FOOD SAFETY PLAN 04/05 34 A Motion to endorse the Food Safety Plan for 2004/05 subject to minor amendments, was proposed seconded and adopted. 35 RESPONSIBILITY FOR CORPORATE GOVERNANCE A report of the Director of Legal and Democratic Services was considered. A Motion to adopt a recommendation that the Standards Committee shall be responsible for promoting and maintaining high standards of corporate governance within the authority in respect of all aspects of the ethical conduct of, and between, officers and members and its work programme adjusted accordingly, was proposed, seconded and adopted. 36 CHANGES TO THE STRUCTURE AND CONSTITUTION OF THE BROMLEY LOCAL STRATEGIC PARTNERSHIP A Motion to approve changes to the structure and constitution of the Bromley Local Strategic Partnership was proposed, seconded and adopted subject to Section 5 of the Constitution (Membership of the Partnership Forum) to include reference to the collective resources of its members to promote the Borough and its case for investment to all relevant parties including the Government and regional and sub regional bodies. 5 37 MOTION – RACHEL NOTLEY DAY CENTRE A Motion was moved by Councillor Fookes and seconded by Councillor Getgood. as follows:"This Council regrets the decision of the Portfolio Holder for Social Care, Health and Housing to decide unilaterally to close the popular Rachel Notley Day Centre prior to the widest and most appropriate consultation with all agencies and individuals concerned. Accordingly, the Council resolves instead to undertake a comprehensive review of day services for older people in consultation with them and organisations representing their interests. It further resolves to implement best practice from other local authorities". On being put to the vote this Motion was LOST 38 NOMINATION OF A DEPUTY CHIEF EXECUTIVE/CHIEF OFFICER The Council considered this appointment following determination by the Executive on 6th September 2004. In addition to the conditions of appointment agreed by the Executive it was agreed that “(v) in the event of an extended absence (recommended no more than 28 days) the position would be reviewed by the Executive.” Subject to this addition, it was proposed, seconded and adopted that the appointment of Paul Dale as Deputy Chief Executive, alongside his substantive post of Director of Resources, be ratified and that the Constitution be amended accordingly. 39 APPOINTMENT TO THE HEAD OF HUMAN RESOURCES It was proposed, seconded and adopted that an appointment be made as a successor to the Head of Human Resources following her retirement. The following Members were nominated to serve on the Appointments Panel:Councillors Arthur, Carr, Fookes, Jenkins, McBride, Owens, and Toms. MOTION – PROTECTION OF THE GREEN BELT 40 The following Motion was moved by Councillor David McBride and seconded by Councillor Geoff Gostt:"This Council notes with concern the mass unauthorised incursions on to the Borough's Green Belt, most recently at Waldens Farm, St Mary Cray. 6 Council deplores the fact that that the current planning laws give the Council no powers to deal with these incursions in a way that protects the amenity of the Green Belt for local residents. Council therefore calls upon the Government to give Councils such powers as a matter of urgency in the next Planning Bill or other appropriate legislation." This Motion was referred to the Executive for consideration and report back, without debate. MOTION – PLANNING ENFORCEMENT 41 The following Motion was moved by Councillor Fookes and seconded by Councillor Holbrook:"In view of the increasing concerns from local residents, this Council instructs the Executive to review the resources allocated to the Planning Division to ensure that enforcement action is made a priority." This Motion was referred to the Executive for consideration, without debate. MAYOR’S ANNOUNCEMENTS 42 The Mayor thanked Members and those officers involved with the ceremony for the Freedom of the Borough that had recently been granted to Mr Richard Lane. Members were reminded of the Tea Dance in aid of the Mayor‟s charity which would take place on 29th September and the Dinner and Cabaret on 23rd October . The Mayor thanked all those involved with the Bowls, Cricket and Golf teams during the summer. Mayor The meeting ended at 10 pm 7 APPENDIX A COUNCIL MEETING 20TH SEPTEMBER 2004 QUESTIONS ASKED BY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC 1. FROM JENNIFER FRASER OF 45 KENT HOUSE LANE BECKENHAM OF THE CHAIRMAN OF THE DEVELOPMENT CONTROL COMMITTEE UNAUTHORISED ERECTION OF 3G TELECOM APPARATUS GARDNER INDUSTRIAL ESTATE KENT HOUSE LANE BECKENHAM "What reassurance can you give residents of Kent House Lane that the mobile phone masts on the Gardner building, which do not conform to planning permission granted in 2001, will be removed?” The Chairman of the Development Control Committee replied that his understanding was that this telecommunications equipment had been installed in different positions and to a different specification than that originally agreed by the Council in March 2001. It had been the subject of a full report by the Chief Planner to Plans Sub-Committee on 26th August 2004 when it had been agreed that enforcement action would be taken. Agents on behalf of the applicant had confirmed that they would revert to the original scheme approved by the Council but no timetable had been given for this; in the circumstances it was considered expedient to authorise enforcement action. He was advised that the masts had now been relocated to the approved positions (the equipment cabin was in its proper position) but the masts were not strictly in accordance with the details. However, although the antenna had been moved to the back, the supporting pole at the front now carried a telecommunications dish. The applicants had been advised that enforcement action would continue. However, it was not possible to reassure residents at this stage that the unauthorised development would be removed. If the company concerned did not remove it at their own volition and appealed against the enforcement notice, the Council's action to get it removed would be suspended and the decision then would be out of the Council‟s hands and made by the Planning Inspectorate. He could not give any immediate reassurance as requested. The company concerned had indicated that it would revert to the approved scheme, and in the 8 meantime the Council had authorised the necessary enforcement action. He then quoted from a letter written by the Head of Development Control to the applicant expressing dissatisfaction at the disregard for planning laws and the Council. A supplementary question was asked, stating that conforming to the approved plan would still ruin the visual amenity of the area and as residents had not been consulted and were strongly opposed to the masts, would the Committee Chairman reflect on residents views that as the 2001 plan had not yet been implemented, planning permission should be withdrawn ?. The Chairman replied that although he understood the views expressed, the application was one of the standard ones where if no decision was made within a prescribed period it automatically got permission and as approval had been given they had now got that permission. To withdraw it (a Revocation Order) was an extremely complex procedure which, even if agreed by Bromley, was subject to approval by the Secretary of State. It was probable that the applicants would appeal and a public inquiry held, but he felt it to be very unlikely that the Council would agree to this procedure. 2. FROM MR. HAROLD BARKER OF THE LEADER OF THE COUNCIL” “Will the Council Leader agree with me that social services nil star status is the direct result of chronic under funding by current and previous Conservative administrations, resulting in the department unable to support the vulnerable in our community adequately.” Mr Barker did not attend the meeting and a written reply would be sent. 3. FROM MS SULIS OF THE PORTFOLIO HOLDER FOR SOCIAL CARE HEALTH AND HOUSING (Questions asked by Mrs Jean Stout) “ISARD HOUSE RESIDENTIAL CARE HOME (a) What risk management procedures has BUPA set up to reduce the risk of residents falling? (b) How many falls have:(i) been recorded since April 2003 (monthly) (ii) required hospital treatment? (iii) resulted in hospital admission? 9 (c) For hospital admissions what were (i) the cumulative length of stay (bed -days) (ii) outcomes for patients? The Portfolio Holder replied that the standard of care in Care Homes was a statutory responsibility for the Commission for Social Care Inspection. Their inspection in April this year and their recommendations were reported to the Portfolio Holder meeting on 7th September. He said that the management of falls was one of the features of residential care due to frailty and disability of the users. It was a priority for Care Homes and was closely monitored by the Commission. The number of falls at Isard House was being monitored, Between January and July this year there were 145 incidences reported when people had fallen and they had been reported to the Commission. During the same period 44 older people from Isard House had attended the Princess Royal University Hospital accident and emergency department and 13 had been admitted but not all of these were due to falls. This number was similar to other Care Homes in the Borough. The hospital could not provide information on the number of bed days and outcomes for these patients. The Council were continuing to work with the staff of Isard House and BUPA to improve the standards of care and this would continue to be monitored. A supplementary question was asked “were the majority of falls happening at night.?” The Portfolio Holder had no information on this but if it could be ascertained from the hospital, he said that he would inform the questioner. 4, FROM MS SULIS OF THE PORTFOLIO HOLDER FOR SOCIAL CARE HEALTH AND HOUSING (to be asked on behalf of Maria Goldenberg) 1. ISARD HOUSE (Report to Portfolio meeting on 7th September) "Falls are a standard in the NSF for older people. (a) Has Social Services audited falls at Isard House and investigated causes? (b) If so what are they? (c) What are BUPA's current failings referred to in para 3.13 of report DSSH 04060 ? (d) Does the Council have a duty of care to Isard House residents?” The Portfolio Holder replied that the falls at Isard House were closely monitored as identified in the previous question. The falls were caused by a range of factors (examples were given). The management of falls was a key feature of residential 10 care for older people. The report referred to the manager of Isard House identifying issues and taking action to ensure a good standard of care. The Councils duty of care to residents (point (d)) was carried out with the Commission for Social Care Inspection 5. FROM MS SULIS OF THE PORTFOLIO HOLDER FOR SOCIAL CARE HEALTH AND HOUSING ISARD HOUSE The Council has stated (1(b) ) that issues identified in the April CSCI report were mainly concerned with training and recording, and not with the standards of care (a) How can these repeated failures (ref (I) not affect the standards of care? (b) How can the Council tolerate these repeated breaches of statutory requirements? The Portfolio Holder replied that the summary of the Commission for Social Care Inspection report on their April 2004 inspection was attached to the report to the Portfolio Holder meeting on 7th September. That summary and the full report made it clear that some of the standards were only partially met and that action was required. If this action was not taken then there was a risk that the standards of care would fall below an acceptable level. That is why the Commission for Social Care Inspection and the Social Services and Housing Department were monitoring the action taken by Isard House. With reference to point (b) the Commission for Social Care Inspection had the statutory responsibility for the inspection and regulation of Care Homes. They had required an Action Plan to meet the issues they identified at their last inspection. Isard House had produced an Action Plan which had been accepted by the Commission. The Social Services and Housing Department supported this Plan which would ensure that the residents of Isard House would have a good quality of care. A supplementary question was asked. Councillors were asked to see the special reports that were being shown on ITV news this week regarding care standards and criticisms of the Care Standards Commission and their failure to enforce standards. This touched on the issue the questioner was raising that the Care Standards Commission was tolerating these breaches and questioned whether Members would be watching. The Portfolio Holder confirmed that he would probably watch but advised the questioner that she should not believe everything in the press and hoped that they would be reporting on the latest developments at Isard House and not those events that happened four or five years ago. 11 APPENDIX B COUNCIL MEETING 20TH SEPTEMBER 2004 ORAL QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS 1. COST OF WRITTEN QUESTIONS Question By Councillor Taylor of The Leader of The Council "What was the approximate cost in terms of officer time and financial cost to the public purse of 39 written questions put by Councillor Willetts at the last full Council meeting?" The Leader of the Council replied that it was difficult to calculate the cost of officer time involved as it varied depending on the question and its complexity. However, it was estimated that the cost amounted to an average of £100 per question when the loss of staff time on other productive work was taken into account. The cost in this instance therefore amounted to £3,900. A supplementary question was asked of the Leader, if he considered that it was an abuse of the Council question process by the Member concerned, bearing in mind the 61 questions asked at this meeting. and did he feel that this was a satisfactory use of scare resources ?. What action could be taken to negate the superfluous and irrelevant questions asked (examples were given) ?. The Leader agreed with the questioner and suggested the opportunity should be taken to accept the offer of assistance by the Portfolio Holder to address any important issues. He also said that the seriousness of the questions would have to be considered in the future before officer time was wasted. 2. SKATEBOARDING Question by Councillor Neil Reddin of the Portfolio Holder for Leisure and Culture "How many facilities for skateboarding are there in the Borough?" The Portfolio Holder confirmed that there were five skateboarding facilities together with a fourteen ball courts and locations of that sort also in the Borough. 12 A supplementary question was asked concerning a Liberal Democrat publication suggesting that there were no skateboarding facilities in the Borough and therefore nothing for young people to do. The Portfolio Holder criticised this publication which in his view had printed a story which was clearly not true. As well as the existing skateboard ramps it was intended to put additional facilities in Harvington Park. He felt that this would assist residents who wanted to use such facilities and they would not have to resort to using town centre areas as had been reported. 3.ABANDONED VEHICLES Question by Councillor Neil Reddin of the Portfolio Holder for the Environment “How many abandoned vehicles have been removed each year from within the borough since 2000/01?" The Portfolio Holder replied that in 2000/01 there were 2065 vehicles removed; 2001/02 – 2263; 2002/03 – 2245; 2003/04 – 1076; and 2004/05 (8 months to August) – 217. A supplementary question was asked – if the Portfolio Holder would agree that the major factor in this success was the current administration‟s clean and green policies and would not have been possible if the Lib/Dems policy of cutting the budget for clearing abandoned vehicles, had been followed. The Portfolio Holder agreed that there was a difference in the way the Lib/Dems had tackled the problem compared to the present administration. The numbers had stabilised as soon as the Conservatives were in power and numbers of abandoned vehicles had dramatically reduced. This had been very much welcomed by residents. 4. SURE START, PENGE Question by Councillor Michael Turner of the Portfolio Holder for Children and Young People "Would he care to make a statement on future plans for Sure Start, Penge?" The Portfolio Holder stated that Sure Start, Penge was the cornerstone of the Council‟s drive to provide integrated services to families in areas of deprivation, based on local people deciding what services are needed to make a difference to their local community. 13 One of the goals during the last year had been the extension of the area covered by Sure Start Penge to include any family who lived within the SE2O area. At the same time the age of children eligible for the programme was raised to 5 years old, which increased the reach of the programme from a potential 530 families to around 750 families. On 12th January 2004 building works had begun at the Groves Nursery site. With £1 million capital funding from the Sure Start Unit and £55K from the Neighbourhood Nursery Initiative, the work would transform the current nursery into the new Sure Start building, „Community Vision‟. It would eventually house a multi disciplinary integrated health and social care team, along with many more child care places, within one building. The Council was now well on the way to having the first phase completed with the second due for completion December 2004. The number of services now up and running was well over 60 and they ranged from large organisations such as the PCT to small voluntary groups. These services included midwifery, a befriending scheme for parents and a training and job shop. The project also had a shop on Penge High Street, which offered a wide range of advice and information, and was in the heart of the local community. Sure Start Penge had also been at the heart of the development of new Children‟s Centres within Bromley. At the Portfolio Holder meeting on the 27 th July he had decided to develop two Children‟s Centres: these plans had now been accepted by the DfES Sure Start Unit. These would be based in Anerley at the relocated and enlarged James Dixon School and in Orpington at the Blenheim Primary School. They had been developed with the input from the local community in both areas, building on existing provision of Sure Start Penge and Bromley Children‟s project, and would ensure that the Sure Start approach to supporting families was extended into other areas of Bromley. These Children‟s Centres would be part of the wider agenda of offering a range of services in an Extended School model. To maximise the benefits of the Children‟s Centres programme, he had agreed at his meeting on 14th September 2004 to develop Sure Start Penge as Bromley‟s third Children Centre, which would ensure Bromley was able to develop a childrens‟ centre strategy across the Borough. In recognition of the successes at Sure Start Penge the manager, Barbara O‟Reilly, had been invited recently to meet the Prime Minister and his wife at a reception held at 10 Downing Street to celebrate achievements within Sure Start programmes across the country. The Portfolio Holder asked members to join with him in congratulating her on that recognition. The project was going from strength to strength and was an example of successful integrated service planning and partnership involving Bromley Council‟s Education and Social Services, Bromley Primary Care Trust and the Voluntary Sector. 14 APPENDIX C COUNCIL MEETING 20TH September 2004 QUESTIONS BY MEMBERS REQUESTING A WRITTEN RESPONSE Questions by Councillor Willetts 1. To the Portfolio Holder for the Local Economy With regard to my written question 26/4/04, item 28, page 14- lease renewals/rent reviews Cotmandene Crescent shops, your predecessor Councillor Arthur failed unsurprisingly to reply properly in answer to this question and quotes 'works have already been undertaken to block windows and secure the rear of these shops' etc. would you now provide the proper response to my original question?. Reply I apologise for the error but the reply which should have been given is as follows:Re: Differences in rent levels at Cotmandene Crescent The difference in the increases in the rents on shop units at Cotmandene Crescent can be explained by the different rent review pattern in the leases and by the fact that reviews have not been implemented in the past. In some cases reviews have not been undertaken for ten years 2. To the Portfolio Holder for the Local Economy With regard to my written question 26/4/04 , item 27, page 14- first storey shop roofs 52-58 Cotmandene Crescent, I am well aware that works have been undertaken to block windows etc, the problem in question here is the ease of access to the roofs via adjacent alleyway wall by local youths who graffiti adjoining flank wall 60-62 Cotmandene Crescent (involving long delays in removal due to risk assessment factors) and pelt local residents with eggs/water bombs from this vantage point. so I would again request that financial resources are found to protect/secure local businesses, along with shoppers and residents using the parade? Reply: Consideration is being given to the installation of an anti-climb device along the top of the vulnerable areas of wall adjoining the alleyway by the side of 52-58 Cotmandene Crescent. Anti-climb paint may be used but it may also involve the installation of razor wire and discussions are being held with Health and Safety 15 officers of the Council on the practicalities of this proposal. Costs of this work could be met from the existing annual maintenance budget. 3. To the Portfolio Holder for the Environment With regard to your reply to my written question 26/4/04, item 29, page 14- verge reinstatements after major highway works in Chipperfield road, I would point out there have never been any verge posts along the Chipperfield Road frontage of Hoblingwell recreation ground, further the so called 'satisfactory standard' of reinstatement by LBB's park and countryside team consisted of a basic two man team raking off an array of weed infestation which still persists today as does a significant area of bare patches adjacent to the then newly installed kerbing. I would again ask that this area be properly reseeded/reinstated and further that the area frontage in question is marked up for waiting restrictions as the residents opposite are becoming increasingly concerned at the damage caused by vehicles and litter deposits during associated sporting activities at the recreation ground?. Reply: The problem with the verges is due to vehicle overrun and failure of the grass to recover causing the weeds to take a hold following last year’s dry summer. The introduction of waiting restrictions at this location is likely to be a very low priority, when considered against all other requests from across the borough, if and when finances become available for parking control schemes. There are currently no funds allocated by this Council for parking schemes, however, if money was to become available it would be directed to roads or areas where parking is creating a dangerous situation resulting in personal injury accidents. This is not the case in Chipperfield Road. This section of Chipperfield Road is on a weekly sweeping schedule and the provision of litter bins will be considered. 4. To the Portfolio Holder for the Environment With regard to a an e mail complaint to highways technical support 17/6/04- fly poster stickers on flank wall adjacent 1 Haverstock court, Cotmandene Crescent. As of 12 noon today 6/7/04 they are still insitu, what is the reason for the delay in removal? Reply: No record can be traced of the initial report. After receipt of the question the site was visited and no trace of stickers could be found on the wall; however, two small stickers were on the entrance porch door and arrangements are being made to remove them. 16 5. To the Portfolio Holder for Strategy and Resources With regard to 'ACCESS ANYWHERE' system including upgrades to Members‟ personal computers. this process started in the summer of 2003 and a year on and we still await this upgrade, can you explain the inordinate delay? Reply: A trial group of Members started using the Access Anywhere system in the summer of 2003. Though the trial was successful, it did give rise to several technical issues relating to the build of the operating system, and the Access Anywhere software. It also brought to light inadequacies in the broadband service delivery prompting a re-evaluation of LBBs preferences regarding telecommunications supplier. Full confidence in the software and PC build took some time to establish, and the build itself was not signed off by LBB until 17 th September 2004. The billing issues with ntl:home were finally resolved in August 2004. In addition, extended discussions were required before Liberata produced a job spec. and quotation that was deemed acceptable by LBB. However, as of the time or writing, the project has progressed to the roll-out stage, and Liberate/Sx3 are scheduling the installation of new equipment commencing Tuesday 21 st September. 6. To the Portfolio Holder for Strategy and Resources With regard to LBB smoking policy , under THE POLICY - working areas, para 10, bullet point 6 'interview rooms', what are the 'exceptional circumstances' outlined in the policy? Reply: The “exceptional circumstances” are referred to in the Smoking Policy Exclusion List Appendix 1 point 2 under Social Services and Housing interview rooms when staff are permitted to allow smoking when “at risk and in emergency situations”. This clause was to provide staff with the option of allowing clients to smoke in order to reduce the risk of violence, or to help clients cope with other extreme life event under discussion. A similar clause was placed in point 7 of Appendix 1 to cover the rare occasions when a traumatic birth/death event was being registered – perhaps a multiple family death or still birth. This flexibility is by exception and with the explicit permission of the Registrar. 7. To The Portfolio Holder for the Local Economy With regard to replacement of plate glass shop windows in Cotmandene Crescent, having had one shop unit in the Crescent requiring replacement of plate glass over to laminated to meet health and safety standards, A) how many 17 more units require this installation ? and B) assuming these safety works have been identified, when will this work be carried out? Reply: The intention is to replace all plate glass to vacant shop units where this is considered below minimum safety standard. These include 56, 67, 89, 93 and 125 Cotmandene Crescent. Shop fronts and shutters may also be replaced where necessary. 83 will require a complete new shop front including glass, as none exists at present. There will be situations where incoming tenants will replace the shop fronts and plate glass themselves and it is anticipated that these will include 115 and 123. The Construction and Maintenance Team in the Property Division are preparing specifications for the work at present. 8.To the Portfolio Holder for the Environment With regard to the Walsingham linear walk from junction Springshaw Rd through to Midfield Way, can you explain why this once well planted and beautifully trimmed pathway created to enhance the local environ has basically been left to go to rack and ruin and now has become a jungle obstruction for local residents? Reply: Walsingham Linear Park has recently received a cut back of vegetation in line with the specified programme for naturalised shrubberies. A further shrub trim is scheduled for September. 9. To the Portfolio Holder for the Local Economy With regard the executive portfolio holder for local economy meeting 30/6/04, in item 5 DRO4081 para2 last sentence, the Chief Property Officer mentions ' limited resources', would he explain exactly what 'limits' referred to are in this report? Reply: The reference to limited resources relates to the resources of Planning staff to undertake a detailed analysis of private shopping parades. The officer time involved would be considerable and no additional funding is currently available. The planners have identified 72 local neighbourhood shopping parades alone with a total of around 1500 individual units. This does not take into account the major shopping centres in the Borough. 10. To the Portfolio Holder for Social Care Health and Housing With regard to my written question 26/4/04, item 35, page 17/18 - Leesons centre, with regard to your reply para1, the Leesons centre/former Leesons infant 18 school has always been a learning facility and as such should be retained for that purpose., para3) you mention in brackets 'when the site will be sold off', since this existing site already fits the criteria re ease of access to community facilities e.g. shops, pubs , cafe, pubs, churches, church halls, post office, libraries, post office, good public transport etc . since you preside over a zero rated service which seems incapable of identifying further standard day centre sites shouldn't you either resign or ditch this harebrained scheme? . Reply: The Leesons Centre does not meet the criteria for the standard units. The nearest shops, cafes, post office etc are in Cotmandene Crescent. For those service users who are able to walk, the journey can take 15 minutes; for those who use a wheelchair and need to be pushed, the journey can take 25 minutes. 11. To the Portfolio Holder for the Environment With regard to my written question 26/4/04, item 25, page 13- k.l.b islands Cray Valley West, have you now obtained quotes to clean/repaint metal bases as I still await a graffiti tag to be removed from a k.l.b. in Leesons hill junction Clarendon Way reported some 3 months ago?. Reply: The Director of Environmental Services has obtained a quotation although he does not have the budget to undertake painting of the islands within the Borough this financial year. The graffiti removal had not been ordered, this has now been done and will be removed by the end of August. 12.To the Portfolio Holder for Community Safety With regard to CCTV system review draft paper August 2004 para 7.4 -Cray valley, A) wouldn't you agree that the last sentence ''the long term objective must always be to remove the cameras once the identified need has disappeared so as to reduce any notion of stigma attached to the estates in question' is highly ambiguous''? and with regard to para 3.2 - Cray valley B),wouldn't you agree that the current residential flexible system of 19 camera columns with only 10 cameras actually limits our surveillance and increases a never ending circle of crime displacement via review changes and actually detracts to the quality of life for local residents rather than improves it ? Reply: With regard to this question and the two questions following, these issues are being addressed as part of the comprehensive review of the CCTV system. The review has looked at the technical, operational and staffing issues for the system and puts forward recommendations for service improvement and future investment. The review has incorporated a number of different research 19 mechanisms to ensure an objective and realistic solution to a complex subject. An element of the review included a Member working group, of which you were a member.. The first two questions will be dealt with through the formal mechanisms by which the Review will be considered later this year. Members are being kept informed of issues and events, where and when appropriate. However it must be accepted that there will be day-to-day issues that will arise that can be dealt with effectively and efficiently by officers. I am aware that there have been a number of formal reports on the Crays element of the CCTV system to committee and that information is shared between Oliver O'Dell and local Ward Members on a regular basis. It is not possible to share all technical information unless it has a significant impact on the system's operational capability. " 13. To the Portfolio Holder for Community Safety With regard to the Crays CCTV operations group last held on 14/6/04 headed by Oliver Odell , Chief Executives dept, it had been previously agreed that all ward members would be notified of any proposed changes to camera locations, damage to cameras/transmission equipment etc as and when they occur , can you explain why i have not received any information to these effects thereon or shortly after the meeting 14/6/04 ? Reply: Please see above 14. To the Portfolio Holder for Community Safety With regard to the sporadic but extensive air rifle damage to the 'Crays' CCTV cameras. A) will you now be looking to modernise and replace with more robust camera models? and B) if yes, when will you be carrying out a modernisation programme ?. Reply: please see above 15 To the Portfolio Holder for the Local Economy With regard to empty shop unit former Cray Crafts 123 Cotmandene Crescent, can you explain the asking rent of £6,800 for a unit which requires refurbishment to the tune of approx £10, 000 to bring up to a decent level of occupation? Reply: The asking rent of £6,800 is the level to be applied when the shop is in a good state of repair. The incoming tenant, Ms Kate Arrowsmith, the vet at 121 Cotmandene Crescent, will be given a rent free period of twelve months to bring the property up to standard. 20 16 To the Portfolio Holder for the Environment With regard to several requests over a period of 3 months to the enforcement and technical support team to remove dirt/spoil from LBB amenity green opposite 47 Saxville Road, can you explain why this still remains insitu as of today? Reply: The Council’s contractor reported that the work had been completed by 26 th June. A site inspection on 24th August indicated that the amenity green was clear. 17. To the Portfolio Holder for the Environment With regard to the highways network management team(lighting), a local resident residing in Chequers Close has over the past 6 months been in dialogue with Mr Dillion (LBB) and messrs Stockhall and Gilbert in regard a lamp column outage, can you explain why this outage problem has not been resolved over this period?. Reply: The outage has been due to a fault with the electricity company’s (EDF) underground cable. The fault has been reported to EDF on numerous occasions but regrettably they have failed to repair it. This matter has been referred to EDF’s senior management team, who have given an undertaking to restore the unit into operation and to put in place procedures to prevent future incidents of this type occurring. 18. To the Portfolio Holder for the Environment With regard to my question 5/7/04, item 6, page 2 - delays in grass cutting, I cannot support your weather 'blip' theory as we have had past instances of severe wet spells without delays of this nature. I believe the root cause of the problem was both the late start due to lack of machinery and the lack of manpower in areas 1 and 4 based at the Priory Depot which at present totals 10 and well short of the required 18 for the 'summer' season ? Reply: The contract does not specify how many men or resources are to be deployed. This is for the contractor to determine upon local conditions. 19. To the Portfolio Holder for the Environment With regard to gypsy/traveller incursions on the green belt site at Waldens farm, Crockenhill Road, I have received resident complaints alleging that a public footpath is now being illegally used as a road to gain access to the site which includes associated traffic, generator and stereo music noise all 21 hours of day/night , destroying the local habitat via cutting back and burning of trees/vegetation etc. A) Can you give me a full and detailed account of what the Council intends to do in the short term about this alarming and intolerable situation which has severely disrupted the lives of the adjacent law abiding residents? and B) further, would you agree to a 'C.P.O' in order to prevent further incursions/environmental damage which i believe would protect the long term future of the site? Reply: A) A number of complaints have been received of smoke nuisance from burning on the site and we have discussed the matter with the fire brigade, who have also been called to this site. When officers have visited any such fires are always unattended and thee is no way to establish who is responsible. Further monitoring will be undertaken. One complaint was received of noise from a generator in this location. However, when monitoring visits were undertaken the generator was found to be attached to one of the caravans and periodically used for power. It is not a statutory noise nuisance and no further action is proposed. We have received no complaints regarding noise from music and no noise from music has been noted on any of our monitoring visits. B It would be premature to comment on the position at present as a report is being prepared for the Portfolio Holder for Strategy and Resources at his meeting on 3rd November. 20. To the Portfolio Holder for the Environment With regard to part of my original question on schools 5/7/04, item 6, page 2 -St Peter and St Paul Primary School, despite the mild weather over the past four weeks can you explain why the grass cutting contractors have 'not performed' the scheduled weekly cuts over the periods weeks beginning 21st and 28 h June and 5th July 2004 ? Reply: The work at St Peter and St Paul Primary School was missed. The contractor was not paid and a financial penalty taken. The work has subsequently been caught up. 21. To the Portfolio Holder for the Environment With regard to my question 5/7/04, item 20, page 7- Robin Hood Green, if you are unable to cut the prolific growth on this green on an additional 'one off' , would you on completion of the cut remove the mass of arisings from the site as my ward colleague Councillor Holbrook has had to report to the metropolitan 22 police that youngsters in that locale are now collecting and setting fire to these arisings?. Reply: At Robin Hood Green, mowing has continued to diminish arisings and no specific problem is evident. 22 To the Portfolio Holder for the Environment With regard to my question 5/7/04, item 6, page 2 in regard the anonymous letter re enterprise p.l.c , bearing in mind the recent mild weather over the past 5 weeks your temporary weather blip theory doesn't really hold water due to the fact that that in area 7 including the groves estate alone there has been an increasing number of residents complaints ranging from poor quality cutting to areas being completely missed, can you explain why?, Reply: The lost eight working days due to bad weather caused a backlog of work, which has subsequently been caught up. 23 To the Portfolio Holder for the Environment With regard to your reply 5/7/04, item 18, page 6- Sutherland Avenue (Cray Valley West) lighting replacements, A) you have still not explained why this road is included in the residential roads list for Petts Wood?, B) since some of these columns are completely structurally unsound having been fitted with steel sleeves for safety reasons, wouldn't it have been more appropriate under these circumstances to renew all columns in 2004/5 and in tandem with current nearby replacement programme works in Cray Valley West? Reply: A) Sutherland Avenue is in the geographical area of Petts Wood. B) Steel sleeves are sometimes fitted to concrete columns to extend their lives until such a time that they can be replaced on a relighting scheme. This is a standard maintenance practice. 24 To the Portfolio Holder for the Environment With regard to my written question 5/7/04, item 20, page 7- rear service rd 21-63 Broom Avenue, can you explain how if this road is in private ownership, the Council (LBB highways) has adopted part ownership of this road along with Broomleigh Housing Association's ownership of an adjacent garage area? 23 Reply: From the highway point of view it must be said that the service road is not a public highway. From the information available from the Terrier Map held by the Legal Division and the plans prepared at the time of the transfer of the housing stock to Broomleigh Housing Association, it appears that the majority of the service road is not in either the Council’s or Broomleigh’s control. The Terrier indicates the former extent of the Council’s interest in land in this vicinity and that shows that the Council has never had ownership of the majority of the service road but that it owned land abutting it. The fact that at the north end the Council adopted a spur off Broom Avenue to the service road is of no relevance to the fact that the rest of the access is privately owned, rather it is simply a consequence of the Council carrying out work on land it owned at that time. 25 To the Portfolio Holder for the Environment With regard to the construction of a vehicle crossover at 43 Curtismill way by O‟Rourke Construction and Surfacing Ltd, having sustained a fall by way of a trip hazard at this recently constructed crossover I am appalled at both the lack of a quality standard finish and the adjacent tarmac margin associated with this work which has been left in a dangerous condition, on behalf of the householder, what do you intend to do about this complaint? Reply: After a meeting between the resident of 43 Curtismill Way, Councillor Willetts and the Assistant Director (Street Services), the Council sent a letter on the 9th August 2004 indicating the remedial works it was prepared to carry out to rectify the agreed faults with the recently constructed crossover. The site is in a safe condition but no response has yet been received from the resident, so agreement on remedial works is still pending. 26 To the Portfolio Holder for the Environment With regard to my written question 5/7/04, item 22, page 8- ' hail and ride' routes R1and R4, having already written to London buses outlining my objections to these proposals I am heartened to hear of your support against these wholesale changes, can you inform me of the outcome of your meeting between yourself, Robert Neil (GLA) and London buses on the 16/7/04? Reply: A meeting was held with Councillors Taylor and Grainger, Bromley Officers Gareth Davies and David Blackburn and Bob Neil GLA Assembly Member, on 16 July 04. The main point expressed by London Borough of Bromley Officers was that the hail and ride appeared to be working well and they found it difficult to accept that 24 fixed stops could improve access since many passengers would have further to walk. At the meeting it was hoped that we might obtain an agreement to retain the existing Hail and Ride system, this was not the case but London Buses did agree that the proposed stops would be placed on hold pending a review of the various routes and locations. Implementation would then be on a stage-by-stage basis and locations where London Buses currently experienced difficulties as a result of the Hail and Ride system would be given priority. London Buses say they are reviewing hail and ride operations throughout London. The main reasons they quote for proposing replacement by fixed stops are:  To comply with the Mayors Transport Strategy to make it easier for Iow floor buses to pull into the kerb so that passengers can board and alight more easily, facilitating wheelchair and buggy users.  To ensure that disabled passengers have equal access to bus services. The Disability Discrimination Act requires service providers to make reasonable adjustments to overcome physical barriers to access.   To ensure that buses only stop or are requested to stop at places where it is safe to do so. To overcome problems that arise when passengers request buses to stop frequently within a short stretch of road. London Buses say that they recognise that hail and ride is popular with many users and that there will be some situations where it should continue for the time being, such as roads with no pavements. In the London Borough of Bromley there are currently proposals to convert four hail and ride routes to fixed stops. These are routes R1, R3, R4 and 352. A total of 73 new stop locations have been identified following site meetings with Council Officers, the Police and bus operators. Having explained its reasons London Buses agreed to:  Review the current proposals, recognising that fixed stops may be necessary in some roads for safety reasons but considering retaining hail and ride in areas where all parties agreed.    Improve consultation procedures by giving Boroughs written notice of proposals to convert routes to fixed stops before site meetings were set up. Write to inform residents when bus stops were to be located outside their homes (already proposed as general policy from later this year). Clarify the criteria for converting sections of routes to fixed stop operation. 25  Consider appeals from residents regarding proposed bus stop locations. All parties agreed:   That a mixture of hail and ride and fixed stops in the same road would not be practicable. That where fixed stops were necessary, some would inevitably have to be located outside residential properties, even where the owners objected. This review is due to be completed by 31st August. In the meantime all implementation works in the London Borough of Bromley have been put on hold. (Note Councillor Grainger has indicated that he did not accept that it was inevitable that bus stops would have to be located outside residential properties) 27 To the Portfolio Holder for the Environment With regard to my question 5/7/04, item23, page 8- recycling, you mention in your reply that all houses in the borough should now have a black and a green recycling box, however, residents on the Leesons estate (Farmington Avenue, Wynford Grove, Robin Way, Selwyn Place and Hawkinge Walk) have commented that they have only ever received a green box and having inspected this area i found this to be the case, would you undertake a delivery of black boxes to this estate at the earliest opportunity? Reply: Residents in these roads will have black boxes within the next few weeks. Approximately with effect from 23.8.04. 28 To the Portfolio Holder for the Environment With regard to my written question 5/7/04, item 11, page 4- Saxville Road grass verge reinstatement, the reason the grass doesn't grow here and in Chipperfield Rd is because you use untreated/inferior top soil plus the lack of due care and attention to these areas by 'highway contractors' on completion of works, hence the infestation of large weeds with virtually no grass growth with no germination along Chipperfield nor will there be any along Saxville Road this or any other autumn. Local residents are not interested in 'retention sums' they are however extremely concerned with the ongoing 'eyesore' at these locations which would question your lack of commitment to a 'clean and green' borough particularly here in Cray Valley West? Reply: The topsoil used is of a quality agreed with the Landscape Division and is acceptable for the use to which it has been put. The failure of the grass to germinate has been passed to the contractor and the verges requiring work will be completed within the next month. 26 29 To the Portfolio Holder for the Environment With regard to Crescent Carpets in Cotmandene Crescent, can you explain why frontage shutter graffiti has not been removed despite reporting this to both the enforcement and technical support team and valuations and estates department on three occasions over the past two months ?. Reply: Some graffiti was removed on 28th July 2004. A further order was placed on 19th August. The contractor has experienced difficulty in the past due to the shutter being in the open position when attending the site. 30 To the Portfolio Holder for Strategy and Resources With regard to my question 5/7/04, item 36, page 14- housing benefit response delays, I am somewhat bemused at your reply cited in paragraph 2 that delays occurred due to the 'complexity of both cases' since the housing benefits manager stated to me that the delays were caused by staff shortages due to annual leave, who am I to believe, you or the housing benefits manager concerned?. Reply: On receipt of your emailed question of the 29th July, I contacted Bromley’s Head of Benefits, Liberata’s Benefits Manager and the Section Manager of the Benefits Specialist Team. This includes the individual who directly dealt with the matter. All confirmed the accuracy of the information that was provided to Councillor Carr, which in turn was relayed to you in his written response. The delay in responding to the two enquiries was a result of the complexity of the cases concerned. I am sorry that you were subsequently given incorrect information and would be grateful if you could supply the name of the manager concerned in order that the section minimize the opportunity of any re-occurrence. 31 To the Portfolio Holder for Social Care Health and Housing With regard to my question 5/7/04, item 32, page 12- Leesons Centre A) when(what date) did users express through individual and group consultations their preference for community based opportunities?, B) you also mention users leaving school who are electing not to use the centre due to there size- where exactly are the users being placed then? C) again, where is your evidence prior to the modernisation programme of users wanting to leave or relocate elsewhere? 27 Reply: Preferences have been expressed at the joint service users council meetings which began in March 2002 and also at service users council meetings held in each day centre. Service users who do not attend the day centres may stay at home, go to one of the colleges for a period of time or be placed out of borough. Prior to the modernization programme there was no option for relocation so the choice was not available to service users. However, there were some individuals who said that they were bored in the day centre; and a number of individuals said that they wanted to work instead of being in a day centre. These views were expressed in annual reviews and also in the users council meetings in each day centre and the joint users council meetings. 32 To the Portfolio Holder for Social Care Health and Housing With regard to my question 5/7/04, item 34, page 12 - planned proposals to establish a number of 'standard units', other than Cotmandene Crescent A) where are these 'so called' number of possible sites being explored?, in para 2 working group of Members, what does 'in an ''attempt'' at being inclusive' mean? Reply: Other possible sites are being investigated in Bromley, Mottingham, Penge, Beckenham and Orpington. The sentence is unintentionally misleading. It should read: “ …….. reprovision programme. In an attempt at being inclusive, the group …….”. The meaning is: “In order to be inclusive, ….”. 33 To the Portfolio Holder for the Local Economy Further to my written question 5/7/04, item 30, page 11- 123 Cotmandene Crescent, your comments indicate you have visited this parade in Cotmandene Crescent, so I would ask how you missed this dilapidated and vandalised 'eyesore' with original wooden entrance shutters as compared with the majority with new security frontage shutters? Reply: The incoming tenant, Ms Arrowsmith, will be undertaking extensive works to the exterior and interior. This will include the replacement of the shop front. Her architect is currently preparing a scheme for submission for planning consent. 34 To the Portfolio Holder for the Local Economy with regard to my question 5/7/04, items 24 and 25, pages 9 and 10, how much money do you have in the existing budgets? 28 Reply: The Revenue Maintenance budget for “Properties held for Investment“ for 2004/2005 was set at £74,469. 35 To the Portfolio Holder for Social Care Health and Housing With regard to my question 5/7/04,item 34, page 12/123- standard day centre provision, having failed miserably to identify further suitable locations for this provision from a social services department perspective, will the established working group of Members be able to deliver the full six standard unit provision or will they be compromised into an implementation which does not achieve full integration, community presence and choice that people want and expect from the council's modernisation programme? Reply: The Project Manager, Seán Connor, e-mailed all Councillors on 8th July 2004 asking for suggestions for locations for standard units, based on their good local knowledge of their wards. He has received a total of 13 suggestions so far and is currently doing initial feasibility studies on them. In addition, the Executive agreed “Building a Better Bromley” at its meeting on 26th July 04. That document states that supporting the independence of vulnerable groups (such as adults with learning disabilities) is a priority. Consequently the Member Working Group is confident that the full Council will support moves to convert premises to standard units, obviously within any legal or other statutory constraints, and that we will be able to deliver the full six standard unit provision. 36 To the Chairman of the Development Control Committee With regard to the Leesons Centre planning brief which will come before DC. committee in August, bearing in mind the vast numbers of objections via local petitions wouldn't it be appropriate to organise a full public consultation meeting locally to discuss this issue with residents, resident associations, schools and churches etc?.. Reply Please see my answer to this question given at the last meeting of the Council 37 To the Portfolio Holder for Strategy and Resources With regard to the non payment of housing benefits beginning April 2004 to pensioners in receipt of pensions credits, A) can you explain why their benefit claims were not paid ?, B) the number of pensioners involved ?, and C) did they receive any compensation for these errors?. 29 Reply: (a) As a result of a software problem, the Housing Benefit payments in respect of 49 Broomleigh pensioners ceased at the commencement of the current financial year. A “bug” in the system resulted in the rent liability being deleted in cases where the claimant’s Pension Credit income needed to be revised. The problem was identified at an early stage and would have affected more claimants had we not been able to manually reenter the rental liability before the next payment was due. It is worth noting that we have a benefit caseload of in excess of 18,000 claimants and the scheme we are required to operate is complicated and subject to frequent changes in legislation. To illustrate this point, last year (2003) there were 80 Housing Benefit guidance circulars issued by the Department of Work and Pensions to local authorities (b) As detailed above, 49 Broomleigh pensioners were affected. All claims were corrected by the end of June. Compensation has not been paid in respect of any of the claims. However any claim will be considered sympathetically on its merits where an individual demonstrates clear financial loss and/or inconvenience. (c) 38 To the Portfolio Holder for Social Care Health and Housing With regard to a recent e mail dated 8/7/04 sent to all Councillors by Mr S. Connor, project manager, social services dept, can you explain why he changed the original parking specifications(six cars including disabled) agreed at the executive 8/3/04 and inserted 'UP' into the equation? Reply Parking space for “up to six cars” implies that the maximum parking space required will be for six cars. However, we are prepared to be flexible on this depending on the nature and location of each standard unit and the availability of local parking. 39 To the Portfolio Holder for the Environment With regard to the bring recycle site in Tillingbourne green, why haven't you investigated an alternative site on behalf of the adjacent residents in Tillingbourne Green who have to put up with this eyesore on a daily basis? Reply: The 4 sites you have suggested have been investigated and are not appropriate. 30 40 To the Portfolio Holder for the Environment With regard to the arboricultural dept within the environmental services dept, I understand the existing 40k budgets for the 3 areas are slowing draining away and will be shortly used up, will you be seeking additional funds to carry this department through to the end of the current financial year? Reply Available budget is always profiled to seasonal work. Efforts for the remainder of the year will concentrate on tree planting, safety survey and hazard removal – as is normal practice. 41.To the Portfolio Holder for the Environment Thank you for your recent e mail inviting me to meet up with both yourself and the Director of Environmental Services, however, why did you not reply back to me when I asked you to set a date for this meeting? Reply: Following a previous offer to meet with us on 25th June, a meeting was set up for 10th August, but I understand you went away to Disney at short notice. I am awaiting your return, at which time another meeting will be arranged. (Subsequently held on 31st August). 42 To the Leader of the Council Following your interview with the news shopper regarding the publication 'building a better Bromley' , isn't it fair to say that your vision statement as leader is born out of a fairly fertile imagination rather than common sense ?, and having failed miserably as portfolio holder over a zero rated social services shouldn‟t your slogan as the new leader of the council read 'looming gloom' rather than blooming and booming?. Reply - No 43 To the Portfolio Holder for the Environment With regard to 'not performed' grass cutting borough wide, could you supply details of all the individual sites including dates that were missed from the grass cutting schedule beginning 2004? Reply: When sites have not been mown in accordance with schedules the contractor is required to visit the site at a later date. 31 44 To the Portfolio Holder for the Environment With regard to LBB car park Longbury Close, having reported on the 8/8/04 and 16/8/04 a build up of dumped wood, glass, plastic bottles and tin cans in the car park area, why is this rubbish still on site as of today 17/8/04? Reply:There was some confusion over the responsibility for the maintenance of the two car parks in this locality. Works have now been completed. 45 To the Portfolio Holder for Social Care Health and housing Can you shed any light into the apparent rat infestation in the Social Services Dept building at the Walnuts, Orpington ? Reply: In July, staff working at Orpington Social Services Area Offices at the Walnuts became aware of a very obnoxious smell within the administration office and reception area. It was suspected that the smell could be from the body of a rat that had died within the building. On 29th July the reception area was closed temporarily and staff moved to other areas. The Council’s pest control contractor, Safeguard, were called and a Health and Safety inspection was undertaken. The source of the problem was tracked to two store rooms and the boiler room at the rear of the building. Bait trays had already been laid in these rooms and in one of the store rooms and the boiler room there was evidence of the presence of rats. Five dead rats were removed from the boiler room by Safeguard. It was also established by placing deodorising blocks in the boiler room that air circulating in the reception area was fed from the boiler room. The rooms were re-baited, and thoroughly cleaned and disinfected. Equipment in the storerooms has been disposed of and works have been undertaken to close possible entry holes and add metal plates to the bottom of doors and door frames to prevent rats gnawing through. Re-baiting of the area will continue and the caretaker has been instructed to make regular visual inspections of the boiler room. In addition, associated problems relating to food disposal bins and a blocked drain at the rear of the building are being rectified. 46 To the Portfolio Holder for Social Care Health and Housing With regard the Bromley day service news issue 9 ,paragraph 5 under social business- how much will it cost to run the two services at the same time until the new service is working properly(double running)? 32 Reply: I refer you to para 4.6 of the paper to Executive, DSSH 03060 Development of Day Services for Adults with Learning Disabilities, 28 July 2003. Work is in progress to ensure that the double running costs stay within the additional funding provided. 47 To the Portfolio Holder for Social Care Health and Housing With regard to Bromley day services, prior to the selection of a preferred provider, in this case the Shaw Trust, a)why did you not determine the status and roles of those staff who would have been running employment activities ?, and b) why did you not determine the costs of keeping the existing service running while the new service is being set up? Reply: Until we had selected the preferred provider it was not possible to determine whether the status of staff would be a transfer or secondment. Roles of staff are dependent on the range of activities the new provider will deliver. I refer to you to my answer to your question about double running costs (referred to above) 48 To the Portfolio Holder for the Environment With regard to your reply to my question bring site Cotmandene Crescent 26/4/04 item 23, page13, you state that the street cleansing contractor is required to visit all recycling sites on a daily basis to ensure that the sites are tidy and this matter will be 'investigated', a) can you explain why this matter was never investigated and a subsequent reply forwarded onto me, b) having complained on two separate occasions regarding a substantial daily build up of general household/recycled goods dumped in front of these containers over the past 3 weeks, can you explain why this site was not visited on a daily basis and cleared? c) since you have continually failed the adjacent residents to clear this 'eyesore' isn't it high time the council removed the bring site from the car park?. Reply: (a) The matter was investigated and the site monitored to ensure that the cleansing contractor was carrying out the scheduled visit. Officers were not aware that a reply was required. (b) This site is visited on a daily basis and the crew is required to sweep around the containers and remove any surplus recycling items. However on the recent occasions to which you refer the amount of dumping of general household waste and garden furniture was too much for this crew to remove. During that week the fly tipping pick-up vehicle cleared the fly tips on three occasions. Since the third episode of flagrant dumping was removed, the site has been monitored daily. 33 Signs are to be erected warning of prosecution for fly tipping and the site is also to be up-graded to a twice-daily cleaning visit. (c) This is a well used site, and we receive little in the way of complaints from residents regarding its operation. The Council is required to achieve recycling rates set by Central Government, and in the current financial year has entered into a PSA agreement based on stretching these targets. Whilst the tonnage of recyclate collected has increased since the expansion of the kerbside scheme, 17% (5,000 tonnes) of the recycling carried out in the Borough still comes from recycling banks. Hence, officers are reluctant to remove any of the bring sites, as this could have a negative effect on our efforts to achieve these targets. 49 To the Portfolio Holder for the Environment With regard to the bring site in the car park at St Mary Cray Station, with regard to the general build up of dumped vegetation dumped in front of these containers, a) can you explain why this site was not visited on a daily basis and cleared?, and b) since you have continually failed to clear this 'eyesore' , isn't high time the council removed this bring site from the station car park? Reply: (a) All recycling site are visited daily for sweeping and clearing of surplus recycling left beside the containers. The crews are not equipped to remove large amounts of garden waste, however, they are expected to report this type of indiscriminate dumping for further action. (b) Please see my reply to your question above 50 To the Portfolio Holder for the Environment Having caught 'red-handed' a person illegally dumping rubbish at the bring site Cotmandene Crescent 31/8/04, why didn't you secure further information to bring this offender to justice as did your colleague and Deputy Mayor, Councillor Roger Charsley? Reply: You will be aware that when challenged by the Director of Environmental and Leisure Services the offender apologised and removed all of the bags. Under these circumstances it would be difficult for the Council to take further action that would lead to a successful prosecution. 51 To the Chairman of the Development Control Committee With regard to the Leesons Centre brief, would you agree to a hold a public meeting locally for the consultees including resident associations /churches/Leesons primary school? 34 Reply Please see my reply to this question at the last meeting of the Council 52 To the Portfolio Holder for the Environment With regard to the corner amenity green in Curtismill Way junction Saxville Road, despite having reported on 3 occasions over the past 3 weeks a 6 foot concrete fence post dumped on the green, can you explain why it is still insitu as of today? Reply: An instruction was given to the street cleansing contractor when first reported and again when it became apparent that it had not been removed. The removal instruction was passed to the refuse collection contractor who has equipment to lift heavy items and it was removed on the 15th September 2004. 53 To the Portfolio Holder for Social Care Health and Housing With regard to the Leesons centre, has the Social Services Department ever offered to re-appropriate the centre back to the education department for additional use for the staff/pupils of Leesons primary school?, if 'yes', when was this offer made? Reply: Officers from the Social Services and Education departments met on 5th March 2004 to discuss the Leesons Centre and the impact of the re-provision of day services on the school site 54 To the Portfolio Holder for the Environment With regard to the shrub areas in o.a.p.'s housing complex in Broad Oak Close, a) can you explain why the overgrown shrub areas have not been cut back over the past three months? and b) when will these areas be cut? Reply: There have been on-going problems with the area Ground Maintenance Contractor who has now been replaced. A new contractor started on the works (in the areas referred to) in the week commencing the 6th September 2004. 55 To the Portfolio Holder for the Environment With regard to the shrub areas in o.a.p's housing complex in Wateringbury Close, a) can you explain why the overgrown shrub areas have not been cut over the past 3 months? and b) when will these areas be cut?. Reply: There have been on-going problems with the area Ground Maintenance 35 Contractor who has now been replaced. A new contractor started on the works (in the areas referred to) in the week commencing the 6th September 2004. 56 To the Portfolio Holder for the Environment With regard to the bring site in the car park Cotmandene Crescent, on inspecting the site Friday 10/9/04 A) can you explain why both paper recycling containers were full ? and B) can you further explain why a build up of dumped bags of paper/household rubbish/general litter in front of these containers has not been cleared?. Reply: The site was cleared and swept each morning around 8 am of the week ending 10th September 04 and the work monitored. However, items for recycling left beside the containers can attract additional dumping; “No Dumping” warning signs are on order for this location and the cleaning frequency is to be increased to twice daily. 57 To the Portfolio Holder for the Environment With regard to your reply to my question 5/7/04- temporary street trading/materials licence - Cotmandene Crescent, as a ward member I did receive e mail notification advising of this trader , however ,it didn't mention the exact location, hence I had to respond with a site visit on the first day of trading via a complaint from a resident stating that the trader in question was obstructing a door entry system entrance to the adjacent Broomleigh property in Haverstock court, Cotmandene Crescent. as to the containers deposited on Tillingbourne Green, I received resident complaints that kids were skylarking/sunbathing on top of them hence I contacted Mr Peter Turvey enforcement and technical support manager LBB to rectify urgently via herras fencing around perimeter with Broomleigh- which I add should have done in first place thus resident complaints could have been avoided by the use of ward members local knowledge. Reply I have noted your statement but there is no question for me to answer 58 To the Portfolio Holder for the Environment With regard to part of my original question on schools 5/7/04 item 6 , page 2 Rectory Paddock School. despite the mild weather on weeks beginning the 21st and 28th June 2004 , can you explain why the grass cutting contractors did 'not perform' the scheduled weekly cut during this period ?. 36 Reply: 'Any non performance at the height of the grass cutting season would be likely due to mechanical or other resource issues' 59 To the Portfolio Holder for Children and Young People With regard to all borough educational facilities 2003/04,could the portfolio holder tell me A)have any pupils been excluded for possession of a knives?, B) if yes, how many exclusions? and C) the names of the relevant education facilities concerned including the specific numbers at each establishment ?. Reply: (a) Yes (b) Permanent exclusion = 6 Fixed period = 7 (c) This information is published annually in the form of a report to the Children and Young People Portfolio Holder. 60 To the Portfolio Holder for Children and Young People With regard to all borough educational facilities 2003/2004, could the portfolio holder tell me A) have any students/pupils been excluded for bullying ? B) if yes, how many exclusions? C) the names of the relevant education facility concerned including the specific numbers at each establishment?. Reply: (a) Yes (b) Permanent exclusion = 1 Fixed period = 37 (c) This information is published annually in the form of a report to the Children and Young People Portfolio Holder. 61 To the Portfolio Holder for Children and Young People With regard to my question 5/7/04, item 38, page 15- teenagers out of school, what was the outcome on funding considerations for an education welfare officer at your meeting 27/7/04? Reply: At my Portfolio Holder meeting on 27 July 2004, I agreed the virement of existing education resources and a contribution equivalent to one post from the budget of the Portfolio Holder for Community Safety. This will fund Post-Ofsted Action Plan growth that allocated an additional £46,000 to the Education Welfare Officers’ budget for two additional posts. These posts are currently being advertised. 37 Questions by Councillor Holbrook 62 To the Chairman of the Development Control Committee PLANNING APPLICATION NO: 04/01492/FULL 2 - 66-68, COTMANDENE CRESCENT, ORPINGTON, BR5 2RG (CRAY VALLEY WEST WARD) (a) Please can you explain at whose request and why the above Planning Application, submitted by the London Borough of Bromley was suddenly withdrawn from the agenda of the Plans Subcommittee 1 meeting on August 12th , 2004, Reply Application 04/01492 relating to the proposed change of use of the ground floor of 66-68 Cotmandene Crescent from retail to adult day centre was reported to the Development Control Committee on 31st August 2004. My understanding is that the Chief Planner withdrew his report from the Plans Sub Committee on 12 th August 2004 because of several outstanding technical issues, to ensure that all relevant information was made available to Members before a decision was made. Specifically it was important to draw Members’ attention to the policy report considered by the Development Control Committee in April 2004 and to the emerging Unitary Development Plans wider planning objectives of meeting the needs of the community. The recommendation the Chief Planner makes to Committee is a matter for him and he assures me that it represents his professional view. (b) Can you confirm that the agenda report indicated that comments from the Council's highways section were not then available but would be reported verbally at the meeting on 12th August. What would this advice have been ? Reply:Please see my response to (a) above (c) Can you explain why the Chief Planner's advice to Members on 12th August to refuse permission for this application was changed to an open recommendation of "Members views are requested" , when the application was considered by the Development Control Committee meeting on August 31st? Reply:Please see my response to (a) above 38 63 To the Leader of the Council Princess Royal University Hospital (a) Has the London Borough of Bromley been made aware of any plans to build a private sector wing from public resources at the Princess Royal University Hospital? (b) If such plans are confirmed , what are the Leader of the Council's views about such a controversial development? (c) Can the Leader ensure that , if such proposals exist, they are considered formally by this Council , via the Executive and the Social Care Health and Housing PDS Committee as well as the Local Strategic Partnership ? (d) In addition will the Council do all in its power to ensure that there is the widest possible stakeholder consultation arrangements over any proposals to create from public funds any "private " wing at the Princess Royal University Hospital? Reply: (a) This is not a private sector wing – it is an NHS resource that will be used to treat private patients, similar to others already established across the country, such as at Guy’s & St Thomas’. The profits generated will be used for the benefit of the NHS. The following Councillors received a verbal briefing from the Chief Executive, Bromley Hospitals Trust, and a written briefing and Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) briefing sheet, with an invitation to formally respond to the proposals: Cllr Carr, as Leader of the Council – letter 6th August 2004 Cllr Chris Philips Cllr Rideout, as Chair of the Overview & Scrutiny Committee - letter 9th August (b) Whilst it is recognised this is an investment of NHS capital resources, the NHS will gain significant benefits as a result of it, including:  More choice for Patients Patients admitted as an emergency, who have private insurance can more easily opt for private care. This in turn will free up NHS beds for patients requiring emergency admission through the NHS. NHS beds and services protected and enhanced  All NHS waiting times targets are currently being met or exceeded – and this will not be compromised. All profits from the private facility will be put back into running the NHS facility 39  Employment opportunities on site All existing NHS jobs will be maintained, and there will be new employment opportunities created. The Benefits There would be multiple benefits in developing this facility: Access will be improved for both NHS & private patients: patients with private health insurance, who have an emergency admission would often like to transfer their care to private provision. However, due to the difficulties associated with transfer to a distant site, this opportunity is often denied them and they remain in an NHS bed. If they were able to readily transfer into a private bed this would release additional bed capacity for NHS patients. There is adequate capacity within the clinical support and diagnostic services, as much of the local work is already undertaken at the PRUH. With the opening of the Orpington Treatment Centre, some theatre capacity has been freed up on the PRUH site, this, coupled with the fact that a significant proportion of private operating time is in the evenings and weekends means that there is adequate space to accommodate the additional patients. A proportion of high risk patients already receive their private care within the PRUH and a further cohort transfer from the private sector to the PRUH if they become acutely ill; therefore it is calculated that the stepped change in demand for critical care from the private patients will be modest and able to be accommodated within the existing critical care bed base. Risk will be reduced; Bromley hospital consultants will be more available to NHS patients because they are more likely to be on site when they are off duty. Having all their patients in one place will enable them to spend more time at the hospital making it easy to pop in to check on a patient or see relatives. Additionally, risk will be reduced for private patients undergoing major procedures, as they will be able to have these undertaken at the PRUH where there is full critical care back up. Financial: the health economy has a substantial, recurring financial deficit which all the organisations have a statutory obligation to resolve. There is a strong commitment to resist cutting back services and the income generated from a private patient unit would make a substantial inroad into cutting the deficit. All the net income received from the private patients treated would be redeployed for the benefit of NHS patients. Local Choice: the government policy of Patients’ Choice at the point of referral will be available from December 2005. It is likely that of the four or five choices for each patient, at least one of these will be within the independent sector. The development of this facility would mean that there would be a local independent sector option for Bromley patients. Recruitment and retention of consultants will improve; the ability to carry out all clinical practice on one site is highly desirable, significantly improving the work 40 life balance of individuals. Having this attractive facility would appeal to consultants in highly sought after specialties where competition amongst Trusts for certain clinical expertise is high. Being able to recruit new consultants to Bromley will be of great benefit to all patients. Whilst it is true that public sector capital from the SE London SHA would be used to fund the proposed development, this represents a good return on investment for the NHS, with a likely payback period of between 2 and 3 years, of income from insurers which would not otherwise be available. The profit generated will be used for the benefit of NHS patients. (c) Bromley Hospitals Trust is in the process of making arrangements to give a presentation to the Overview & Scrutiny Committee, and at the Leader of the Council’s request, to the whole Cabinet. (d) As for public and stakeholder consultation, it is clearly a matter for the Bromley Hospital's Trust to plan and undertake such consultation. The SCH&H PDS is the Council's formal body exercising the power of health scrutiny, and I am sure that Cllr Rideout will be keeping this mater under review. 64 Question by Councillor Tickner of the Portfolio Holder for the Environment I have read that the Liberal-Democrat-run Borough of Southwark is to power its fleet of 75 council vehicles with vegetable oil. What personal experience of vegetable oil can the Portfolio Holder for the Environment offer to Bromley residents, and how is Bromley playing its part in reducing vehicle fuel pollutants? Reply: "I understand that the Borough of Southwark is testing the use of vegetable oil converted to biodiesel in 5 municipal vehicles for a period of 3 months. The fuel being used is actually a mix of 50% biodiesel and 50% fossil diesel and the tests are to understand the real world emissions of pollutants and vehicle reliability. To date there are no reported problems. With respect to my experience, I am pleased to inform my colleague that Bromley has submitted a detailed bid to Transport for London on behalf of the SELTRANS partnership to fund an innovative proposal to recycle waste cooking oils into biodiesel rather than only new vegetable oil. The bid for the £700,000 three-year long project is to be determined by TfL in December this year and draws on extensive use of waste cooking oil biodiesel in other countries. It is notable that in Austria and France a number of fleet businesses and authorities operate vehicles with 100% biodiesel with no problems. The SELTRANS bid has in- 41 principle the backing of the Greater London Authority as a means to not only produce low pollutant fuels at a local level but also a solution to the growing problem of how to sustainably dispose of waste cooking oils from the retail food industry. 65 Question by Councillor Getgood of the Portfolio Holder for the Environment Why is there still graffiti on the wall above the veterinary practice in Parish Lane SE20 despite this having been reported on 1st July 2004 (Case ID 140635248) and referred again, without response, on 3rd September 2004? Reply: The height of the graffiti referred to required a special risk assessment and order to undertake the works. In the past, problems have occurred with obtaining the risk assessment and progressing with the more difficult locations of graffiti. The process has now been reviewed with clear tracking processes in place to achieve clearance within the timescale required. 42